Court dismisses Maria Chin’s travel ban appeal

Source: FreeMalaysiaToday

Maria Chin Abdullah failed in her bid to challenge the Immigration director-general’s decision to bar her from travelling abroad after her judicial review application was dismissed. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa for the MMO.

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed former Bersih 2.0 chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah’s appeal after she was stopped from leaving Malaysia in 2016.

A three-member bench chaired by Justice Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid said the matter was academic and the court would not want to act in vain.

“We are of the view the appeal has become academic and there is no travesty of justice,” she said.

Maria, who was recently elected Petaling Jaya MP, can now travel abroad as the ban has been lifted.

On May 18 last year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ruled that an amendment to the Immigration Act did not allow the courts to hear complaints from citizens who are banned from travelling overseas. Read more

Court of Appeal hearing for Maria Chin’s travel ban

Source: FreeMalaysiaToday

Maria Chin Abdullah failed in her bid to challenge the Immigration director-general’s decision to bar her from travelling abroad after her judicial review application was dismissed. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa for the MMO.

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed former Bersih 2.0 chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah’s appeal after she was stopped from leaving Malaysia in 2016.

A three-member bench chaired by Justice Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid said the matter was academic and the court would not want to act in vain.

“We are of the view the appeal has become academic and there is no travesty of justice,” she said.

Maria, who was recently elected Petaling Jaya MP, can now travel abroad as the ban has been lifted.

On May 18 last year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ruled that an amendment to the Immigration Act did not allow the courts to hear complaints from citizens who are banned from travelling overseas.

Justice Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad said, as such, she could not provide the remedy sought by Maria.

“The ouster clause in Section 59A of the Immigration Act has prevented aggrieved citizens the right to judicial review,” the judge said in dismissing the suit brought by Maria.

She said Section 59 of the legislation further allowed the respondents – the home minister and the Immigration Department director-general – the right not to give reasons why such a ban was being imposed, except for procedural non-compliance.

Maria had claimed that she was informed of her travel ban just shortly before she was to board a flight to South Korea on May 15 , 2016, at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

Maria had applied to quash the decision made by the respondents to blacklist her from travelling abroad. She had also sought a declaration that the respondents did not have the power to reach the decision and had, therefore, acted in excess of their jurisdiction.

Lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, who represented Maria, today submitted that the court should make a ruling to determine the power of the (Immigration Department) director-general.

He said a ruling for future guidance was needed or else the authorities could be irrational and unreasonable in imposing travel bans.

“Where else could we go for remedy if not to the court to act as final arbiter ?” he asked.

Gurdial said failure of the court to make a ruling would put a stamp of approval to the decision of the director-general.

“The issue at hand is not about a private right of a citizen but a matter of public interest,” he said.

Government lawyer Shamsul Bolhassan submitted that there were case laws to support the fact that the court need not hear an academic issue and deliver decision.

“It will be hypothetical to decide on the powers of the director-general,” he said.

Speaking to reporters, Gurdial said the court had abdicated its duty by refusing to entertain the appeal.

“By abstaining, the court has given an unfettered discretion to the director-general to decide on the right to travel,” he said.

Gurdial said it was acceptable if a person was stopped from leaving Malaysia due to a criminal charge or while criminal investigations were conducted.

Maria said she filed the action in court as she had been prevented from leaving the country to accept a human rights award on behalf of Bersih.

“Later we found out the grounds to impose the prohibition was that I will be tarnishing the image of the country,” she said.

 

Related Article

 

Delineation: Courts can inquire into complaints, says lawyer

Source: Free Malaysia Today

PUTRAJAYA: The judiciary can declare the Election Commission’s (EC) exercise in redrawing the electoral boundaries as illegal if guidelines in the 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution have not been followed, the Court of Appeal heard today.

Constitutional lawyer Cyrus Das said in Malaysia it was the constitution that was supreme and not Parliament.

He said the judiciary could not abdicate its powers to some other organs of the government under the doctrine of separation of powers.

“If a legal or constitutional objection is made, it is not for Parliament to decide based on a vote count but for the court to rule on law and facts,” Das said in his submission.

The Selangor government is appealing against a High Court ruling last year which dismissed the state’s judicial review application to challenge the EC’s exercise. Read more

Court allows EC to submit delimitation report to PM

Source: The Malay Mail Online

Today’s ruling could effectively render academic the Selangor government’s appeal to set aside a High Court’s ruling that declared the delimitation exercise in the state valid and constitutional, according to one of its lawyers. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng

PUTRAJAYA, March 2 — The Election Commission (EC) today succeeded in throwing out Selangor’s bid to prevent its report on delimitation, also known as redelineation, from reaching the prime minister.

A three-man Court of Appeal panel led by Tan Sri Idrus Harun today ruled that restraining the EC would have blocked the commission from performing its constitutional duty and obstruct Parliament from receiving the report, hindering due process.

Today’s ruling could effectively render academic the Selangor government’s appeal to set aside a High Court ruling that declared the delimitation exercise in the state valid and constitutional, according to one of its lawyers.

The appeal will be heard on March 23. Read more

Court of Appeal quashes ban on Faisal Tehrani’s books

Source: The Malaysian Insight

Court symbols

Pic drawn from The Malaysian Insight

THE Court of Appeal today quashed a Home Ministry order banning four books authored by novelist Mohd Faizal Musa, 43, whose pen name is Faisal Tehrani.

A three-man panel comprising Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Ahmadi Asnawi and Zaleha Yusof found that the order issued on February 12, 2015, was not in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.

Today’s judgement was delivered by Justice Zaleha, who said the order banning the books was a restriction of Faizal’s constitutional right of freedom of speech.

“Although admittedly the right is not absolute, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant (Faizal) that the court must nonetheless give primacy to it,” she said.

She said if certain pages of the four books were found to offend Section 7 (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Act allowed for the removal of the pages.

“As such, the prohibition of the whole four books, in our considered view, is a very drastic act, irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate and tainted with procedural impropriety,” she said.

Read more

Courts fail voters in EC redelineation challenges, says Sri Ram

Source: FMT News

Retired Federal Court judge and lawyer Gopal Sri Ram in an October 30, 2014 picture by Najjua Zulkefli

PETALING JAYA: The year saw superior courts – the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court – delivering numerous judgments that touched on the basic constitutional rights of citizens.

The most significant were legal challenges mounted by voters and the PKR-led state government in Selangor against the Election Commission (EC) for its alleged failure to follow procedures and demarcate election boundaries as required under the Federal Constitution. Read more

Ex-judge says court failed to use its additional powers in EC case

Source: FMT News

Paragraph 1 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 gives judges the additional power to remedy a wrong, especially on fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution, says Sri Ram. Pic taken from FMT News.

PETALING JAYA: The courts have additional powers to check on illegality and correct any injustice with regard to complaints against the Election Commission (EC) in carrying out the redelineation exercise, a retired judge said.

Gopal Sri Ram said judges could then issue the appropriate order to compel the EC to act in accordance with the law.

“The law is that if the EC acts contrary to the Federal Constitution in the exercise of its powers, then the court can examine the legality of the conduct.

“If there is either illegality in the way in which the power is exercised or any injustice has resulted because of the exercise of its powers, the court can issue the appropriate order to compel the EC to act in accordance with the law,” he told FMT. Read more

Ambiga questions EC’s haste on local enquiries, says GE not valid reason

Source: The Malay Mail Online

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, who is representing the Selangor government, says the EC has not given ‘concrete reasons’ for the apparent urgency. ― Picture by Choo Choy May

PUTRAJAYA, Dec 14 — Lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan today asked why the Election Commission (EC) must rush for local enquiries in Selangor when it still has months to do so, arguing it need not complete its redelineation before the general election.

The EC must then show the need for an urgent court hearing for its bid for permission to carry out local enquiries in the state amid an ongoing lawsuit against its redelineation exercise, Ambiga added.

“What is the urgency, because they have until September 2018 to complete the redelineation exercise.

“What is the reason for this haste that they cannot wait until January? It’s December now, what local enquiries are held when others are on holiday? They can wait until January,” she told the Court of Appeal today.

Ambiga, who was representing the Selangor government, said the EC has not given “concrete reasons” for the apparent urgency. Read more

Selangor loses bid to remove judge in EC challenge, but wins more time

Source: The Malay Mail Online

Palace of Justice — File picture by Yusof Mat Isa

PUTRAJAYA, Dec 14 — The Selangor government failed to get a judge to recuse himself from its lawsuit against the Election Commission (EC) today, but obtained an adjournment of the hearing on the agency’s bid to proceed with local enquiries in the state.

Tan Sri Idrus Harun, who chaired the Court of Appeal panel hearing the matter this morning, dismissed the Selangor government’s application today for his recusal over an alleged “real danger of bias”.

“After considering the application, I find no merits to this application,” he said today without elaborating.

Idrus then allowed the state government’s application to postpone the hearing initially fixed for today, to give it time to respond to an EC notice that was only served to the state government two days ago.

“So as regards the second application, we allow an adjournment to enable the respondent to file an affidavit in reply. The case is therefore adjourned to December 18,” he said. Read more

Anwar’s legal challenge on National Security Council Act dismissed

Source: FMT News

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today dismissed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal to declare the National Security Council (NSC) Act as unconstitutional.

A three-man bench chaired by Rohana Yusuf said Anwar should have gone straight to the Federal Court as he was challenging the competency of Parliament to pass the law.

The ruling affirmed the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in October last year.

Justice Hanipah Farikullah threw out the case as the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram, who represented Anwar, today submitted that the NSC Act was unconstitutional for two reasons. Read more