Opposition suit against the law, EC deputy chief says

A defiant Election Commission deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said a suit filed in the High Court today to nullify GE13 results is unconstitutional.

He said the action by the opposition parties and several candidates who lost in the election went against Article 118 as only an election court could reverse the decision made through the ballot box.

"Their action is well outside the legal line. Only through an election petition can the court act but I leave it to the judiciary," Wan Ahmad told Media

Article 118 provides that no election to the Dewan Rakyat and state assemblies could be questioned unless by way of a petition to an election court.

Wan Ahmad said the plaintiffs had the liberty to do what they liked as they had obtained legal advice.

"They should not claim the court was unfair when it makes a decision," he said with a chuckle

In its suit filed today, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) wants the High Court to set aside results of all 222 parliamentary seats, disband the discredited Election Commission and order fresh elections.

This route was taken because the indelible ink fiasco caused massive cheating, destroyed the integrity of the election, and deprived the opposition pact of a legitimate opportunity to form the federal government of Malaysia, PR said in its suit.

It noted that some 30 parliamentary seats were lost by PR by fewer than 10 per cent of the votes.

The plaintiffs, PKR, DAP and PAS, also went for the seven EC members.

They are its chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, Wan Ahmad and members Datuk Mohamad Ramji Ali, Datuk Dr P Manogran, Datuk Christopher Wan Soo Kee, Datuk Md Yusop Mansorn and Abdul Aziz Khalidin.

Each of them is being sued in their personal capacity and will have to pay exemplary damages if they lose.

In addition to the three Pakatan Rakyat parties, other plaintiffs to this action are opposition candidates Dzulkefly Ahmad, M. Manogaran, Saifuddin Nasution, Arifin Rahman and R. Rajoo, who all lost by narrow margins.

The plaintiffs argued that Abdul Aziz  and Wan Ahmad are accustomed to accepting instructions from the prime minister and cabinet members, thereby shattering any semblance of neutrality.- July 15, 2013.