Former Langkawi Umno member Anina Saadudin has complied with all party regulations by lodging a report with the party disciplinary committee against party president Najib Abdul Razak before filing a suit against Najib.

Her lawyer, Mohd Haniff Katri Abdulla told the three-member Court of Appeal bench today that all this can be seen in Anina's statement of claim.

"She lodged the complaint against Najib to the party's disciplinary committee but no action was taken against him. She had fulfilled all party conditions (before filing the suit).

"Yet, she is sacked and the High Court in striking out her challenge against the sacking had ignored this," the lawyer said.

Haniff said there was nothing in the affidavits of Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and organising secretary Abdul Rauf Yusoh to rebut this.

Yet, the lawyer said the judge who strucked out the suit (Justice S Nanthabalan) merely used Section 18 C of the Societies Act 1988 – that an action brought by a member against the party cannot be heard in court.

He said the High Court did not allow her client to challenge the constitutionality of Article 20.7 of the Umno constitution under which Anina was sacked.

"We submit that Article 20.7 has not been triggered yet as it deals with cessation of being a member and it is as if the High Court judge was putting the cart before the horse.

"On the one hand, the judge said there is remedy for Anina as she could rejoin the party after three years according to Article 20.11 of the party constitution.

“On the other, the provision is for appeal after termination of membership. It does not deal with cessation from being a member," he said.

Haniff said as a result of this, Anina's right to freedom of association had been violated.

The lawyer was submitting against Anina's expulsion from Umno following her suit filed against Najib to return the RM2.6 billion to the party.

Court of Appeal judge Justice David Wong Dak Wah led the three-member bench that also consists of Court of Appeal judges Badariah Sahamid and Harminder Singh.

Final and conclusive

Lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun for Tengku Adnan submitted that Section 18C of the Societies Act renders the decision of the party as final and conclusive and cannot be brought to court.

He said the Societies Act is an act of Parliament and for it to be challenged, it must be brought to the Federal Court.

When asked by Wong and Badariah whether the party could apply to challenge Section 18C as Malaysia practises constitutional supremacy, Hafarizam said it could.

“However, the appellants had not applied to do so,” he said.

Justice Wong said he was not suggesting that the parties do so but was hypothesising.

To this, Haniff said such an issue did not arise before at the High Court and should the court strike out this bid, it did not stop Anina from filing the application to seek Section 18C be declared unconstitutional.

Section 18C was placed there after amendments to the act in the wake of the 1988 Umno crisis when the party was declared illegal following a challenge brought to court, and Umno Baru was formed.

Justice Wong said the court will deliver its decision on the matter on Thursday.