Judicial Review of Delimitation Exercise

The High Court judge should have granted judicial review on the delineation process. It is imperative for a judicial institution such high court to address issues of national importance if there is substance that would make a case for judicial review what more if it involves voters ‘rights in the spirit of 13 schedule of the federal constitution. This was not adhered to in the following case. 

The first delineation inquiry was held in Ipoh on 1.11.2016 relating to objection from Ipoh Barat and Ipoh Timur voters on factual accounts of distorted electoral roll which categorically denies voters equitable   representation in State   Assemblies and Parliament   and the manipulation   of boundaries   to   favour   certain   parties.   These   have   basically   violated   the   one   man   one   vote principle that is ingrained in the federal constitution. 

Following this the Election Commission had on the 8th of March 2017 published in the main news print that the 2nd enquiry on the delimitation will take place all over the country except for Selangor. 

This prompted me to write a letter to the Election Commission (EC) asking for the factors which were or   were   not   taken into   account   when   the Ipoh   Barat   voters   attended   the   first inquiry on 01.11.2016. The EC   replied   immediately without   providing   any answers to   the matters I asked but said the 2nd inquiry process will commence soon. Thus, the EC failed and neglected to give a reply, which makes the first inquiry a mere academic exercise. 

By reasons of the above Ipoh Timur MP Thomas Su and I filed an application to review the decision of the EC. The matter was heard in full on the 18th April 2017. 

Subsequently on the 05.05.2017, the Ipoh High Court, presided by Y.A Che Ruzima Ghazali, decided that the two applicants, namely the Ipoh Barat and Ipoh Timur MPs’ application for leave for Judicial   Review   to   challenge   the Election Commissions’ Redelienation process as unconstitutional was frivolous and that there isn’t an arguable case for the applicants. In the meantime the Malacca High Court presided by Y.A Vazeer Alam Mydin had heard a similar Judicial Review and had allowed it on the basis that the court felt there are cogent grounds to challenge the EC .We had even given the Malacca High Courts application for Judicial review which was similar to ours to the Judge in the Ipoh High Court as it was of persuasive value when the Ipoh judge delivers his decision. To our utter shock and disappointment, the Judge dismissed our application for judicial review on the basis that our application was frivolous. In fairness, the Court should have questioned the EC when it refused to give reasons on why matters we had argued before the tribunal was not divulged to us. By not questioning or by saying not all is lost as we have another opportunity at the 2nd enquiry shows that the court has missed a golden opportunity to right a wrong done by the EC.  

Therefore, the failure of the EC to adhere to one man one vote as stipulated by the Federal Constitution, wherein the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately   equal   pursuant   to   Section   2(c)   of   the   Thirteenth   Schedule   of   the   Federal Constitution should have jolted the Court to its core. A great judicious act was missed today. The High Court should have granted a judicial review in the line of spirit of 13 schedule of the Federal Constitution.