KUALA LUMPUR, June 18 — An application by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the four others ousted form Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) to obtain an ad-interim order, effective while they await the hearing of an original application to deem their removal from the party as unlawful, was thrown out by the High Court here today.
The application for the ad-interim injunction, which names the ousted five including the party Bersatu itself as plaintiffs, was filed against party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, secretary-general Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin, working secretary Capt (Rtd) Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya, and the Registrar of Societies.
Matters were originally supposed to be discussed in chambers, but due to social distancing regulations, proceedings were held in open court but behind closed doors; press were not allowed in.
Today’s ad-interim order was sought on top of an original mandatory interim injunction order being sought by Dr Mahathir and four others against Muhyiddin and the three other parties, while they wait for the matter to be heard in court in full which has since been fixed for July 9.
According to court documents, the ad-interim order had sought to prohibit the defendants named in the suit from having Bersatu party meetings or make any party decision until the original interim injunction order has been disposed of by the courts.
Other prayers contained within the ad-interim application include seeking a court order to prohibit any alterations from being done to the Bersatu’s founding documents, and for the Registrar of Societies to rectify the contents of the said documents.
The fourth prayer contained in the ad-interim application seeks an order to bar those named as defendants from invoking Article 10.2.6 against the membership status of the sixth plaintiff, Datuk Marzuki Yahya.
.jpg)
Speaking after proceedings, Haniff Khatri, representing Dr Mahathir and his camp, explained that the ad-interim order was sought to maintain the status quo within the party and for the revocation of their memberships be deemed unlawful until the matter of the interim injunction order is heard in court.
“So that no damage can be done until the matter can be heard inter parties on July 9.
“After hearing arguments from all parties including from the senior federal counsel, the court decided that the ad-interim order was a no-go.
“So we are where we were before the filing of the suit, but the hearing of the inter parties has not been disposed of yet,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Rosli Dahlan, representing Muhyiddin, explained how the court ruled that all defendants of this case need not file their reply in defence to the interim injunction order application after they submitted that they would instead be seeking to strike out the entire application.
“It’s a bad action, it is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, and an abuse of court; so she (the judge) agreed to that and the defendants need not file our defence,” he explained, referring to High Court Judge Rohani Ismail.
Concerning the application for an ad-interim injunction order, Rosli explained how the court had agreed to their argument that the application was unlawful.
“So the court decided that the balance of convenience and the balance of law and principles of law does not justify that (the temporary application),” he explained.
“What has happened today is that the plaintiffs’ number through six, who claimed that they are still members of the party, did not manage to get the injunction that they sought; they cannot get the injunction yet, and they also cannot get the ad-interim order until the disposal of the matter in July,” he added.
When elaborating on their grounds they plan to submit on to strike out Dr Mahathir’s main interim injunction application, Rosli explained the first matter to be addressed would be the issue of Bersatu being named as a plaintiff in the suit.
Carrying on, Rosli said that the next matter that they would address would be the irregularities contained within the affidavits of the five seeking interim injunction order.
“The first one, from a legal point of view is to strike out Bersatu first as a plaintiff; who gave them the authority to use Bersatu’s name?
“And not only that, in a derivative action, you do not name that organisation as a plaintiff; so that itself is an abuse of the court.
“On the second part, they are saying they are still members; there is a declaration of leaving a party which can be by letter or can be by conduct.
“In their case, it’s both by letter and conduct because they wrote to the secretary of Parliament and said ‘I don’t want to sit with them’,” he said referring to the ousted five choosing to sit with the Opposition bloc during the last Parliamentary sitting on May 18.
“Then there are other irregularities, so there are irregularities of law and the irregularities of facts,” he added.
Dr Mahathir and four other MPs had on June 9 filed a lawsuit to challenge Bersatu’s termination of their memberships and effectively their leadership roles in late May, besides also seeking compensation.
In their lawsuit where they are seeking for 26 court orders, Dr Mahathir and the other affected individuals wanted the court to declare that Bersatu president Muhyiddin is not the acting chairman of the party and that Hamzah’s appointment as the party’s secretary-general is invalid, and to even have the latter two terminated as party members.
The lawsuit was filed by Dr Mahathir in his stated capacity as Bersatu chairman, with the rest who are suing named as Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir as Bersatu deputy president, Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman as Bersatu Youth chief, Maszlee Malik and Amiruddin Hamzah. All five of them insist that they are still Bersatu members despite the party’s May 28 removal of them.
“The suit launched by lawyer Haniff Khatri alleged that Dr Mahathir was unlawfully removed as chairman of Bersatu and prime minister.
“Haniff alleged various conspiracy theories by Muhyiddin to remove Dr Mahathir as chairman of the party; in Dr Mahathir’s affidavit, he also denied that Dr Mahathir is with PH (Pakatan Harapan).
“In response, the affidavits filed by Muhyiddin, Hamzah Zainudin and Capt Suhaimi said that the allegations are twisting the real facts,” Rosli elaborated on his claim of the existence of factual irregularities within the main interim injunction suit.
Other defendants today were represented by Datuk DP Naban, Chetan Jethwani and Leonard D. Cruz.
Dr Mahathir and the other plaintiffs were represented by Haniff and his co-counsels.
