High Court rejects voter's bid to stall Semenyih polls
SEMENYIH POLLS | The Shah Alam High Court has rejected an originating summons filed by a voter to stop the Election Commission from going ahead with the Semenyih by-election on March 2.
The voter, Sabariah Mohd Shariff, 58, had named the EC, chairperson Azhar Azizan Harun, and the federal government as defendants...
SEMENYIH POLLS | The Shah Alam High Court has rejected an originating summons filed by a voter to stop the Election Commission from going ahead with the Semenyih by-election on March 2.
The voter, Sabariah Mohd Shariff, 58, had named the EC, chairperson Azhar Azizan Harun, and the federal government as defendants.
Sabariah's counsel Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz (photo, above) told reporters that Judge SM Komathy ruled that the High Court was bound by a precedent set in 2017 by the Court of Appeal.
"The High Court judge has ruled to reject the originating summons filed by Sabariah Mohd Sharif on grounds that, firstly, the court is bound by a 2017 decision in a case brought by Nurul Izzah (Anwar).
"In that case, the Court of Appeal decided that, with reference to Section 33C under Schedule 13 of the Federal Constitution, functions of the EC are not affected by its lack of members," said Mohd Khairul Azam.
"Therefore the (High) Court (today) ruled that EC chairperson Azhar Azizan Harun can carry out his functions on his own," he said.
In her originating summons, Sabariah had sought a declaration that the EC does not exist and had become illegal and/or unconstitutional after Jan 1 in accordance with Article 114(1).
She also sought a declaration that the EC meeting on Jan 18 chaired by Azhar himself without the deputy chairperson and the five members was null and void, and contrary to Article 114(1), and all the decisions made at the meeting were also null and void and could not be executed by Azhar.
Speaking to reporters later, Mohd Khairul Azam dubbed the High Court's decision as "saddening," but said it was understandable, as the court was bound by the Appellate Court's decision.
"We have informed the court that we will file an appeal against the decision in 24 hours' time.
"We will ask the court to review the decision made in 2017, to see whether it is still relevant or not in the context of the current EC," he said.
No order was made as to costs.
