The home ministry has been accused of relying purely on technicalities in its attempt to defend its decision to ban Bersih 2.0, the movement’s counsel told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.

perak state govt crisis 030309 tommy thomas Tommy Thomas, representing 14 individuals who filed a judicial review against the decision on behalf of Bersih 2.0, argued that their case should be viewed based on its merits in order for public interest to be served.

He said the arguments posited by the attorney-general against their application imply that the government is immune to legal challenges, as it effectively closes the door to anyone seeking redress over whatever grievances they have.

"If one is to listen to the attorney-general, then the government is immune to suits. You cannot get prohibitions, orders of mandamus... You cannot get anything against the government.

"If he (attorney general) is correct, we might as well close the judicial review," Thomas said during submissions.

Public interest

Earlier, senior federal counsel Kamaludin Md Said, representing the attorney general's chambers, argued that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to apply for a judicial review as Bersih 2.0 was never a legal entity to begin with.

NONE He also said the application is frivolous and is based on an "incompetent" affidavit filed by Bersih 2.0 steering committee chairperson Ambiga Sreenevesan ( middle ), that failed to include the requisite authorisation from the 13 other plaintiffs.

The submission of a second affidavit that included authorisation from the other plaintiffs had gone against proper procedure as the authorisation should have been included in the first submission, added Kamaluddin.

At this point, Thomas interjected, stating that if the attorney general's chambers insisted on fighting the case based on technicalities, then the latter had also failed to stick to their own arguments by not submitting a second affidavit of their own to object to Bersih 2.0's second affidavit.

"It is clear in British law for over 200 years, that those counsel representing the crown come in as guardians of public interest. The attorney general chambers here act in the same capacity as guardians of public interest.

"How is public interest served by the attorney general's representative's arguments that go purely on technicalities?" he said.

Test case

Bersih 2.0, otherwise known as the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, filed their application for judicial review last July 8, to challenge the order by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein declaring it illegal.

The coalition named the home minister, the inspector-general of police and the government as respondents.

The application was filed by the coalition's 14-member steering committee on behalf of Bersih 2.0.

The plaintiffs include Ambiga, Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, S Arul Prakkash, K Arumugam, Haris Fathillah Mohamed Ibrahim, Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Liau Kok Fah, Maria Chin Abdullah, SP Subramaniam, Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat, Yeo Yang Poh, Yeoh Yong Woi and Zaid Kamaruddin.

Hishammuddin had on July 1 declared Bersih an illegal organisation under the Societies Act 1966, on the grounds that the coalition posed a threat to national security and public order.

His declaration was made during a period of intense police crackdowns on Bersih 2.0 protesters, in what was seen as a bid to derail the coalition's planned July 9 street rally in support of electoral reforms.

High Court judge Justice Rohana Yusof has set Sept 28 to deliver her decision on whether or not to grant leave for Bersih 2.0's application.