The Court of Appeal today unanimously allowed the Election Commission's appeal over a Sarawak High Court decision that declared their recent re-delineation exercise in the state null and void.

The appellate court announced in Putrajaya that as such, the re-delineation and the notice issued was valid.

Justice Mohd Zawawi Mohd ‎Salleh, who led the panel in his judgment, said the EC had complied in giving notice.

Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli read the unanimous judgment and said the appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.

Mohd Zawawi also ruled the appeal was allowed, cross-appeal dismissed and the High Court order set aside.

‎The third judge on the panel was Justice Idrus Harun, who was formerly the solicitor-general.

Batu Lintang assemblyperson, See Chew How ( photo, at right ) one of the respondents who filed the judicial review, had complained that certain parts of his constituency had entered into another parliamentary constituency namely Kuching‎ from Stampin as a result of the redelineation.

The Sarawak re-delineation exercise sees an additional 11 state seats being added to the present 71 bringing the total to 82. The Sarawak state elections have to be called by the middle of next year.

Justice Abdul Rahman in his 49-page judgement said that when the EC issued a notice, it had received 64 objections from the voters and the first inquiry was conducted in May 2015.

He said the respondents did not file an objection but filed for a judicial review.

In his judgment, Justice Abdul Rahman said particulars are required to be disclosed but not the particulars of the nature mentioned by the High Court in any case.

“It is factually wrong for the High Court to say that the details of the proposed recommendations have not been disclosed by the EC. They have in fact been disclosed in the First and Second Schedules of the Notice. There is no question that the EC had acted in bad faith by suppressing information,” he said.

Inquiry being held

The EC, he said, need not furnish further details as there was nothing in Section 4 of the Thirteenth Schedule in the Federal Constitution that required them to furnish details.

"It means what it says and does not mean to anticipate (further details to be made available)," he said.

The judge said the EC has no duty to disclose more details than what they had disclosed in the First and Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

“The High Court has stretched the meaning of the word 'effect' in Section 4(a) of the Thirteenth Schedule beyond permissible limits. The word means no more than the consequence or the resulting changes brought about by the proposed recommendations,” Justice Abdul Rahman said.

‎The Section 4 notice must communicate to the public the redelineation exercise, the Court of Appeal judge said.

"We are unable to accept the High Court judgment as the EC had provided particulars over and above the details," he said.

The Court of Appeal judge also ruled that the voters right to make a representation had not been impaired by the EC as mentioned by the learned High Court judge.

“The respondents allegation that their right of making a representation has been impaired is unsupported by evidence. The allegation is based purely on their belief,” he said.

Justice Abdul Rahman said an inquiry was already being held to determine if the constituents are adversely affected.

"‎The consultation process would lead to the inquiry and this is the proper process and not use the courts (in filing for a judicial review)," he said.

Appeal to Federal Court

The court did not make an order as to costs.  See said he would be filing an appeal to the Federal Court.

Senior counsel Cyrus Das and Ambiga Sreenevasan appeared for See while Senior Federal Counsel Amarjeet Singh, Shamsul Bolhassan and Azizan appeared for the EC.

JC Foong appeared for the Sarawak government and lawyer Andrew Khoo for the Bar Council.