KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 30 —  The Melaka High Court has set February 7 and 11 to hear preliminary objections by Election Commission (EC) and two others against an election petition filed by Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate for the Sungai Udang state seat, Datuk Seri Mohamad Ali Mohamad who lost in the recent Melaka state election.

The two others were Dr Mohd Aleef Yusof of Perikatan Nasional (PN) and the returning officer for the state seat during the election which took place on November 20.

Senior federal counsel S. Narkunavaty who represented EC and the returning officer said the dates were fixed by Seremban High Court Judge Datuk Azman Abdullah during case management. Judge Azman was appointed to preside the petition.

On December 14, Mohamad Ali, 57, had filed an election petition to annul the victory of Dr Mohd Aleef, 35, alleging that there were elements of corruption involved in the constituency during the election.

Advertisement

He named Dr Mohd Aleef who won with a majority of 530 votes in the four-cornered fight, the returning officer for the state seat during the election and the EC as the first to third respondents.

In his petition, Mohamad Ali claimed Dr Mohd Aleef was a member of the Hang Tuah Jaya Umno Division Youth Committee before being nominated by Bersatu to contest in Sungai Udang.

Mohamad Ali said Dr Mohd Aleef had never been elected as an assemblyman before, or ever contested in any election in the area, and had to rely on Tanah Merah MP Datuk Seri Ikmal Hisham Abdul Aziz to introduce himself to voters.

Advertisement

Ikmal Hisham is a former Umno member who joined Bersatu after the defeat of Barisan Nasional (BN) to Pakatan Harapan (PH) in the 14th General Election (GE). He resigned from Umno and joined Bersatu in 2019.

Mohamad Ali claimed that Dr Mohd Aleef had committed corrupt practices in the election as stated under Section 32 (c) of the Election Offences Act 1954.

He has sought a declaration that Dr Mohd Aleef was not duly elected in the election, and that the election in the constituency was null and void, besides other orders or relief deemed appropriate by the court. — Bernama