January verdict on reinstatement bid for ex-soldier who refused vaxx

A former soldier who refused Covid-19 vaccination will know on Jan 12 next year whether he succeeds in his court action to be reinstated.

The High Court in Kuala Lumpur today fixed the decision date for Wan Ramli Wan Seman’s judicial review against his early discharge last year from the Royal Army Regiment’s 24th battalion in Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan.

The federal government’s legal representative, senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, confirmed the verdict date.

Ahmad said this after the hearing of the merits of the judicial review before judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid earlier today.

Lawyer Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse appeared for Wan Ramli (above).

Back on Oct 28 last year, the court granted leave to the former soldier to commence with the judicial review, leading to the hearing of its merits today.

Earlier, on Sept 27, 2021, Wan Ramli filed his legal action against five respondents, namely the Armed Forces of Malaysia and its chief Zamrose Mohd Zain, Lieutenant-Colonel Sharull Hesham Md Yasin, Lieutenant Mohamad Azammunir Mohd Ashri, and the government.

Sharull is the commanding officer of Rasah Camp while Azammunir was allegedly the officer who signed Wan Ramli’s letter of discharge. Both of them were contended to be under the supervision, control, direction and law as well as policy administration of the remaining three respondents.

Wan Ramli is seeking a declaration that the letter of discharge dated Aug 4, 2021, as well as his early discharge, is null, void and of no effect.

The 40-year-old is also seeking a direction of the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter of discharge, costs and any other relief deemed fit by the court.

According to the cause papers, Wan Ramli claimed that on July 3 last year, he received instructions from the (army) company clerk at Camp Rasah’s clinic to take the Covid-19 vaccine. However, he exercised his constitutional right not to be vaccinated.

‘Put under tremendous pressure’

The then soldier claimed that he was then subjected to multiple rounds of interrogation on July 5, 6 and 9, where he was allegedly “put under tremendous pressure and was scolded by some of the officers for refusing to be vaccinated”.

Wan Ramli claimed that on July 10 last year, he was tried by Sharull and charged under four provisions of the Armed Forces Act 1972, namely for disobeying orders to be vaccinated; using threatening or insubordinate language to a superior officer; disobedience to a standing order; and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

He claimed that Sharull denied his request to be court-martialed, which he contended amounted to a serious violation of the rules of natural justice and allegedly deprived him of his livelihood, which is safeguarded under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Wan Ramli contended that he merely said, “I am still not agreeing to be vaccinated”, which he claimed does not amount to threatening or insubordinate language and that he has a fundamental right to refuse vaccination.

The former sergeant claimed that on Aug 3 last year, he was told that his new discharge was effective from Aug 26 last year, which is much earlier than his normal rate of discharge on Jan 20, 2023.

He contended that the discharge was invalid because, among other reasons, the respondents’ action is disproportionate in all circumstances of the case, amounted to unlawful discrimination, oppressive, irrational and/or unreasonable, and took into account irrelevant considerations.

Wan Ramli also claimed that he lost his right to a pension due to the dishonourable discharge from service, and further contended that the deprivation of his livelihood amounted to a deprivation of the constitutional right to property.

Senior cop convicted of money laundering gets another appeal chance

AGC not appealing against ruling to return luxury items to Najib, Rosmah

Bar seeks compensation from cops for barring march to Parliament

'Superman Hew' out on police bail – lawyer