EC wins appeal over redelineation

PUTRAJAYA: The Election Commission (EC) has won its appeal to set aside a decision by the Kuching High Court to nullify its redelineation exercise for Sarawak.

The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that the commission’s notice of recommendations for the proposed exercise was valid and in accordance with the 13th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Court of Appeal judges Justices Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun and Abdul Rahman Sebli unanimously set aside the orders by the High Court and the cross appeal by Batu Lintang assemblyman See Chee How and a voter in Ulu Baram, Pauls Baya.

On May 15, the commission was ordered to republish the notice listing recommendations on the Sarawak redelineation proposal following an application for a judicial review filed by See and Pauls.

The redelineation would have increased the number of state seats from 71 to 82.

Judge Yew Jen Kie had declared the EC’s notice of delineation null and void, ruling that the notice was not in accordance with the 13th Schedule.

Yew had said that there was a serious lack of detailed particulars of the proposed recommendations including the electoral roll for the affected constituencies, changes in the polling districts and electoral boundaries, as well as the electoral size of the proposed new constituencies.

Yesterday, the judgment, read by Justice Abdul Rahman, stated that particulars were required to be disclosed but not details of the nature mentioned by the High Court.

“In any case, it is factually wrong for the High Court to say the details of the proposed recommendations have not been disclosed by the commission,” he said.

Justice Abdul Rahman said the EC had in fact disclosed details in the First and Second Schedules of the notice and there was no question of whether the EC had acted in bad faith by suppressing information.

He said in their view, the EC had no duty to disclose more details than what it had already given in the First and Second Schedules.

“The issue for determination in the appeal is whether the commission had breached the provisions of Section 4(a) of the 13th Schedule,” he said.

Justice Abdul Rahman said they did not find that the voters’ right to make a representation under Section 5(b) of the 13th Schedule had been impaired by the EC’s failure to state the detailed particulars of the nature mentioned by the learned judge.

He said the respondents’ allegation that their right of making a representation had been impaired was unsupported by evidence and was based purely on their belief.

Justice Abdul Rahman said the cross appeal was also defective as it did not set out the nature of the relief claimed and merely set out the grounds of cross appeal.