Did RoS break the law in Bersatu chairman row?


IT was reported that Dr Mahathir Mohamad was returned unopposed as Bersatu chairman as no challengers filed in their nomination papers on March 16.

Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin is to face challenges from Mukhriz Mahathir and another party member for the Bersatu presidency. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/229005

The announcements were made by Bersatu party election committee chairman Syed Hamid Albar after nominations were closed for the party polls at 3pm on March 16.

Syed Hamid then announced that all elections, due on April 18, had been postponed indefinitely due to the Registrar of Societies’ ruling that all meetings and gatherings be put on hold until June 30.

He also said Bersatu’s annual general meeting, due from June 26 to 28, would be postponed until further notice.

Despite the announcements, reports surfaced yesterday that in a letter to Bersatu dated May 5, the Registrar of Societies (RoS) Masyati Abang Ibrahim said the party’s president, Muhyiddin, is now the acting chairman, as provided by its constitution. 

“RoS confirms Dr Mahathir’s resignation as Bersatu chairman. Muhyiddin is now the acting chairman. This is in line with the party’s constitution and will be effective until a new chairman is elected,” she said in the letter.

Clearly, the Bersatu chairman’s position is a subject of dispute after Muhyiddin took the party out of Pakatan Harapan and forged a new alliance with Barisan Nasional, PAS and Gabungan Parti Sarawak and several smaller parties from Sabah to take over the federal government.

Now, the governing law is the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335). Section 16(1) states that if the RoS is of the opinion that a dispute has occurred among the members or office-bearers of a registered society, the RoS may serve notice on the society requiring the society, within one month of the service of such notice, to produce to him evidence of the settlement of any such dispute and of the proper appointment of the lawful office-bearers of the society or of the institution of proceedings for the settlement of such dispute.

Section 16(2) states that if any such notice is not complied with to the satisfaction of the RoS within the period of one month or any extension allowed by the RoS, the latter may take steps to cancel the registration of the society under section 13.

The ambit of section 16(1) was considered by the Federal Court not too long ago in Pendaftar Pertubuhan v Datuk Justin Jinggut [2013] 3 MLJ 16. Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ (delivering judgment of the court) said:

“On a literal interpretation of s 16(1), we are of the view that the RoS is not empowered to inquire into the validity of [meetings of the disputing parties] in order to form an opinion regarding the existence of a dispute. The RoS merely needs to act on the documents presented to him to objectively decide if a dispute had arisen. Once he is satisfied, and here we say on a subjective test, that a dispute had in fact occurred, he may straight away form such an opinion. We say that this is his only statutory duty.

“The RoS need not inquire into the meetings to determine if they are in compliance with [the party’s] constitution. No detective work is required of the RoS to form this opinion. Otherwise the office of the RoS would be bogged down to make unnecessary inquires each time he is faced with an information of a dispute having occurred in a political society.

“Under section 16(1), the power given to the RoS is to direct a society to settle its dispute. There is no power to determine if meetings held by the disputing parties are valid or not. The RoS need not make a finding. He merely comes to an opinion of the existence of a dispute. And this he needs to do as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the fate of a society will be left in a limbo, and all its activities suspended.

“To make inquiries into those meetings … would delay the whole process. The other rationale … is that any dispute between the parties in a society should, if possible, be determined by the members of that society itself.

“We say that the RoS role is one of non-interference in a dispute situation involving a political society.  This is unlike the situation involving Mutual Benefit Societies where the RoS is empowered to hear and determine any disputes.”

“Section 16(1) thus has to be given a narrow interpretation limiting the scope of the duty of the RoS to that of only giving an opinion to the existence of a dispute and directing that society to settle the dispute by serving a notice to it. And in the event of a non-compliance of that notice the RoS may de-register the society under section 13(1)(c)(ix).”

Clearly, there is nothing in section 16(1) which states that the RoS shall determine the dispute or adjudicate upon it.

It is humbly submitted that the RoS letter appears to do so and, therefore, offends section 16(1) of Act 335. – May 20, 2020. 

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight..

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments