What legal standing did the Sabahans lack in their lawsuit?

Question

Accepted Answer

Sabahans Lacked Legal Standing in Lawsuit Against Hadi Awang

The High Court has struck out a lawsuit filed by two Sabahans against PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing, or locus standi, to bring the case. The judge, Datuk Akhtar Tahir, determined that the lawsuit was frivolous and an abuse of the court process, ultimately ordering the plaintiffs to pay RM50,000 each in costs to Hadi.
Insufficient Connection to Alleged Seditious Remarks

The core of the judge's decision regarding legal standing rested on the nature of the alleged seditious statement and the identity of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit claimed Hadi made remarks in the PAS newspaper Harakah on January 18, 2016, which were critical of Christian missionaries. However, the judge noted that the plaintiffs, Maklin Masiau and Lawrence Jomiji Kinsil @ Maximilhian, identified themselves only as Christians in their court documents, not as Christian missionaries. The judge concluded that the alleged offensive content was directed at Christian missionaries specifically, and as the plaintiffs did not identify as such, they could not demonstrate direct harm or standing.
Lack of Primary Evidence and Public Interest Claim Disputed

Further compounding the issue of legal standing, the judge highlighted a deficiency in the evidence presented. The primary document, Hadi's statement in Harakah, was not produced in court; instead, a reproduction from Free Malaysia Today was submitted. The judge deemed it problematic to base a case on a secondary source without the original document, questioning the accuracy and context of the reproduced article. Additionally, the judge dismissed the claim that the lawsuit constituted a public interest matter, stating that remarks made in 2016 could not be considered a current public interest issue when raised years later.
Judicial Restraint on Criminal Offenses and Appointments

The judge also cited the principle of separation of powers under the Federal Constitution as a reason for striking out the case. The plaintiffs sought declarations that Hadi had committed a seditious act and was unfit for government posts. The judge stated that the determination of criminal offenses falls under the purview of the Attorney-General and the executive branch, not the judiciary. Similarly, Hadi's appointment to a ministerial-equivalent position was an executive function. Therefore, the court could not issue declarations on these matters, as it would amount to an encroachment on the powers of other branches of government.
Frivolous Nature and Abuse of Process

Ultimately, the judge found the lawsuit to be frivolous and an abuse of the court process. He observed that the plaintiffs had resurrected an issue from 2016 to create a new legal dispute. The imposition of punitive costs was deemed necessary to deter such frivolous litigation, which can overburden the justice system. The judge indicated that it was a trend for individuals to resort to court action without sufficient grounds, likening it to a "fashion statement" rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal standing did the Sabahans lack in their lawsuit?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends