KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — Malaysia’s courts do not have any jurisdiction to hear cases on internal decisions of the country’s political parties and should therefore strike out Anina Saadudin's challenge against her expulsion from Umno, lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said today.
Hafarizam, who is acting for the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition’s biggest party, also argued that Anina's lawsuit to restore her Umno membership is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
"Why defendant is saying there's no reasonable cause of action is that the court — under Section 18C of the Societies Act — has been ousted of its jurisdiction to hear matters relating to political parties," he told the High Court here.
Today is the hearing of an application by two senior Umno leaders — party secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and executive secretary Datuk Ab Rauf Yusoh — to strike out Anina's bid to reverse her Umno membership termination.
Hafarizam argued that Anina ceased to be an Umno member due to her actions of bringing party matters to court, also citing Umno's constitution when saying that those who were sacked from the party have to wait for three years before appealing with the Umno Supreme Council.
High Court Judicial Commissioner S. Nantha Balan fixed December 7 for the delivery of the decision on Tengku Adnan and Rauf's striking out bid.
In his argument, Anina's lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said two identical letters dated September 1 and September 2 issued by Tengku Adnan mentioned the decision of “Umno headquarters” to sack Anina, without stating the party constitution's provision that she had allegedly breached.
Questioning Tengku Adnan's powers to terminate Anina's membership, Haniff pointed out that it is only the Umno supreme council or a disciplinary board set up by the council that has the power to decide on membership issues.
“How could the (Umno) headquarters decide when there is no such power given in the (Umno) constitution?” he asked.
He said Umno headquarters and Umno supreme council are not the same entity.
He also pointed out that the two termination letters were revealed to the public without being served to her personally.
On September 11, Anina filed the suit against Tengku Adnan and Rauf to seek a court order declaring the two termination letters against her as invalid and void, as well as a court order to declare that her sacking from Umno is invalid.
She also wants a declaration that the Umno constitution’s Article 20.7 — which prohibits the bringing of party matters to court — does not apply to her case based on the facts, and that this provision is invalid and void as it had allegedly breached Articles 5, 8, 10 (1)(a) and 10 (1)(c) of the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Constitution’s Article 5 and Article 8 covers liberty of the person and equality, while Articles 10 (1)(a) and 10 (1)(c) covers the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to form association.
Anina was removed from Umno after filing a lawsuit on August 28, which she said was done on behalf of Umno, against Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Rauf to claim a US$650 million portion of the US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) said to have been donated to Najib by a friendly Middle Eastern nation to help the Malay ruling party in its 2013 election campaign.
