KUALA LUMPUR: Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) has filed a lawsuit against the Dewan Rakyat Speaker for refusing to vacate five parliamentary seats held by its expelled members.
The party, through its executive secretary, Datuk Capt (Rtd) Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya and vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Ronald Kiandee, filed an originating summons on Nov 15 challenging Tan Sri Johari Abdul's action as unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs also named its rogue MPs - Datuk Iskandar Dzulkarnain Abdul Khalid (Kuala Kangsar), Mohd Azizi Abu Naim (Gua Musang), Zahari Kechik (Jeli), Datuk Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal (Bukit Gantang), and Datuk Dr. Zulkafperi Hanafi (Tanjong Karang) — as defendants.
The party is seeking a declaration that Johari acted in violation of Article 49A(3) of the Federal Constitution through a letter dated July 9, by erroneously deciding that there was no casual vacancy in the five parliamentary seats.
The party is also seeking a declaration that Johari must comply with Article 49A(3) by ensuring the five seats are vacated and notifying the Election Commission (EC) within 21 days of the court order.
The plaintiffs further seek a declaration under Article 49A(1)(a)(ii) of the Federal Constitution that Johari's role requires him to ensure that the five MPs are no longer Bersatu members, thereby triggering casual vacancies.
They also want a declaration under Clause 10.6 of Bersatu's constitution that the termination of membership, as decided by the party's supreme council, is not subject to challenge by the first defendant (Johari).
The plaintiffs argued that from Oct 12 last year, the second to sixth defendants had shifted their support to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the federal government, which was a clear violation of Bersatu and Perikatan Nasional's 's stance not to support or join Anwar's administration.
The plaintiffs claimed that the five MPs, despite asserting their Bersatu membership, engaged in party-hopping and exploited the anti-hopping law by not officially leaving the party despite clearly breaching party policies.
The plaintiffs claimed the party had directed the second to sixth defendants to withdraw their support for the prime minister, but they failed to comply despite being given ample opportunity.
On May 17, the party's supreme council issued specific directives to the defendants to retract their support, but their failure to do so led to the termination of their membership.
Subsequently, on June 12, Bersatu issued notices informing the defendants that their membership had been immediately terminated, and their names were removed from the party's membership registry per Clause 10.6 of the party's constitution.
"Through a letter dated July 9, the first defendant made an invalid and ultra vires decision by ruling that there were no casual vacancies for the parliamentary seats of the five defendants, violating Articles 49A(1)(a)(ii) and 49A(3) of the Federal Constitution.
"The reasoning provided — that Bersatu's constitution and the supreme council's directives contradict and infringe upon privileges, freedom of speech, and voting rights — is baseless.
"In reality, the first defendant lacks the authority to determine the constitutionality of Bersatu's constitution and the supreme council's directives, as that power rests solely with the courts," the plaintiffs argued.