GEORGE TOWN: A notice of injunction to stop the Penang legislative assembly from tabling a motion to vacate four assemblymen from their seats has been withdrawn after both parties reached a settlement.
Counsel for the four assemblymen, Rosli Dahlan, told the court that both sides have come to an agreement for the injunction to be withdrawn based on two terms.
“The application for notice of injunction is cancelled as there was an agreement by the state to withdraw its motion and to give sufficient notice if they intend to table a similar motion in future, ” he told two separate High Courts in George Town on Friday (Oct 9).
The four assemblymen – Zulkifli Ibrahim (Sungai Acheh), Dr Afif Bahardin (Seberang Jaya), Zolkifly Md Lazim (Teluk Bahang) and Khaliq Mehtab Mohd Ishaq (Bertam) – filed three writs of summons against state assembly speaker Datuk Law Choo Kiang to challenge Penang’s anti-hopping law, as embodied in Article 14A(1) of the state constitution.
They also filed applications for an injunction to stop the state from tabling a motion to impose the anti-hopping law and force the four to vacate their seats.
State legal adviser Datuk Norazmi Narawi told the court that the Penang government had agreed to withdraw the motion as it could lead to four by-elections.
“The state government already announced yesterday (Oct 8) (that it would) withdraw the motion to avoid by-elections being held now due to the Covid-19 pandemic, ” he said.
He also agreed to the second term of the settlement for the state to give sufficient notice of 14 days if it were to table a similar motion in future.
However, there was no order as to costs in the withdrawal of the application for an injunction.
The first application of injunction by Zulkifli was heard before Judicial Commissioner Datuk Amarjeet Singh.
The two other applications for injunction, by Dr Afif and jointly by Zolkifly and Khaliq, were heard before Judicial Commissioner Wong Hok Chong.
Both courts noted the withdrawal of the application for injunction, and then fixed Nov 26 for case management of the originating summons and to consolidate the three cases.
In their originating summons, the four claimed that Article 14A(1) of the state constitution was ultra vires of the Federal Constitution.
Rosli said they would continue with the summons based on a precedent case.