THE Kuala Lumpur High Court will decide tomorrow morning on an originating summons by Batu incumbent Tian Chua against the Election Commission for not allowing him to defend his parliamentary seat on nomination day last Saturday.

Justice Nordin Hassan said the court would decide whether it was in a position to declare Tian Chua an eligible candidate for the Batu parliamentary seat and allow him to defend his seat.

EC lawyer and senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh had argued that Tian Chua should have instead filed an election petition after the May 9 polls, instead of taking his case to the civil court.

Supporters, which packed the room and the hallway outside, were subdued as Tian Chua waved and left to hold a press conference at the lobby at noon.

Tian Chua had filed an originating summons against returning officer Anwar Mohd Zaid and the EC on Monday, after he was disqualified from defending his Batu parliamentary seat on the grounds of his RM2,000 fine imposed by the Shah Alam High Court on March 2 this year for insulting a police officer.

Earlier, his lawyer, Ngeow Cheo Ying, had argued that the Kuala Lumpur High Court had ruled in 2010 that disqualifying a member of Parliament in Section 48(1)(e) of the federal constitution would require a fine of RM2,001 and above.

She said it was a “settled law” and that Tian Chua was allowed to contest in the 2013 election because he was fined RM2,000.

Today, Nordin said he had only received the case laws this morning and that he needed “to go through them” before making a decision.

“I am a proper candidate,” Tian Chua told reporters after this morning’s submissions. “I believe the court will give us justice, so that my case will be heard.”

“Otherwise, the question of whether or not I’m a legitimate lawmaker puts into question the laws I have made participating in Parliament the last five years.”

Tian Chua’s lead counsel Gurdial Singh, who heads a team of eight lawyers, said they were not challenging the election outcome.

“The returning officer defied the existing law. And the Attorney-General’s Chambers is trying to say that we cannot even discuss his status.

“We want his status to be ascertained. This court must decide. This court must deal with the constitutional issues at hand,” he said. – May 3, 2018.