EC’s electoral boundary redrawing not subject to legal challenge, says Court of Appeal



PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal said courts cannot interfere in the duties and functions of the Election Commission (EC) in redrawing electoral boundaries.

Justice Kamardin Hashim said the election commissioners and their subordinate officers were entrusted under the Federal Constitution to complete the delineation exercise within a two year period.
Kamardin said the action of two appellants to challenge the delineation process was, therefore, premature as the EC only made suggestions to parliament.

“In our view, the appellants brought their fight to the wrong ring,” he said in the judgment which dismissed the appeal of Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran and Ipoh Timor MP Thomas Su Keong Siong.

It will now be interesting to see the outcome of a similar challenge mounted by the Selangor government against the EC when hearing of that case resumes on Oct 13.

On Aug 14, the three-man bench, which had been chaired by Mohd Zawawi Hashim, delivered an oral ruling that the court was not the right forum to hear their grievances.


That ruling affirmed the decision of the Ipoh High Court which refused leave for Kulasegaran and Su to challenge the EC on grounds that the current redelineation of their constituencies was unconstitutional.
The 39-page judgment written in Bahasa Malaysia was delivered last week.

In it, Kamardin said the court concurred with the submission by government lawyer Amarjeet Singh that the EC’s proposals had no legal effect and did not bind anyone.


He said the bench was bound by a Federal Court ruling which held that a recommendation by a tribunal, including a Royal Commission of Inquiry, was not a decision that could be reviewed in a court.


Kamardin said Kulasegaran and Su could challenge the EC proposal at the local inquiry which was the appropriate forum in this case.

Amarjeet had submitted to the bench that the final decision of the EC’s proposal was vested in parliament.

He said the EC would present its report, after conducting local inquiries, to the prime minister before presenting it to the legislature for approval.

“The EC’s proposal is advisory in nature and it is up to parliament whether to accept the report or otherwise,” he said.

Amarjeet said the local inquiries by the EC with voters was merely a consultation process.


Lawyer Surenthra Ananth, appearing for Kulasegaran and Su, said the court was the right forum to give effect to the constitutional rights of voters.


“Our challenge will be academic once the EC submits the report to the prime minister to be tabled in parliament for approval,” he said.

He said the EC had a duty to give reasons why it redrew boundaries that went against the guidelines in the constitution.

On July 18, the Court of Appeal also reversed a leave application for judicial review given to seven voters by the High Court in Melaka on May 3.


The voters from the Kota Melaka and Bukit Katil parliamentary constituencies complained that the EC did not follow the redelineation guidelines.


It is unclear if the MPs and voters from Melaka had filed an appeal to the Federal Court before the expiry of the 30-day deadline.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ipoh lawyer Kulasegaran,Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Kg Tai Lee residents

Ex pub employee sued for allegedly defaming her employers for spreading "lies".

Contradiction in statement given by witness will benefit the teacher charged with UPSR leak