The court ruled that the first and second plaintiffs remained members of their political party, rendering the motion to vacate their seats void, while the third and fourth plaintiffs were validly disqualified under Article 14A due to their expulsion.

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] The four plaintiffs were all previously duly elected Assemblymen for the State of Penang at the 14th Malaysian General Election (hereinafter referred to as "GE-14"). A motion dated 10 February 2023 pursuant to art 14A of the Constitution of the State of Penang (hereinafter referred to as "the PSC") was tabled and debated during the Penang State Legislative Assembly on 6 March 2023 which was duly passed which led to the four plaintiffs having to vacate their seats as State Assemblyman.

[2] Through this originating summons, the four plaintiffs seek inter alia declarations that the said resolution passed was void/unlawful and as a result thereof also seek declarations that the plaintiffs remained members of the State Legislative Assembly until its dissolution in June 2023.

[3] This originating summons brings to fore the substantive issue for judicial determination as to whether the defendants had acted within the legal framework of art 14A of the PSC in declaring the plaintiffs' seats vacant and if not, whether the impugned motion and resolution passed thereto are non-justiciable by virtue of art 18 of the PSC and/or art 72(1) of the Federal Constitution .

[4] Upon hearing counsel with the aid of their written submissions, I had on 8 December 2023 allowed the claim of the first and second plaintiffs and dismissed the claim of the third and fourth plaintiffs. There has been no appeal by the defendants against my decision to allow the claim of the first and second plaintiffs but the third and fourth plaintiffs have, on 8 January 2024, filed an appeal against my decision to dismiss their claim.

[5] As such, I will set out the background facts, the applicable law and provide my analysis of the same with a view of providing the reasons for my decision in dismissing the third and fourth plaintiffs' claim and in allowing the first and second plaintiffs' claim.

Background Facts

[6] The background facts are largely undisputed and can be summarised as follows.

[7] The Pakatan Harapan (hereinafter referred to as "PH") coalition contested in GE-14 that was held on 9 May 2018. At that material point in time, PH was not a registered political party and did not have any members of its own.

[8] The first and second plaintiffs are members of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as "Bersatu"). They have always been members of Bersatu and they remain so to this day. The first and second plaintiffs had to run for GE-14 under the logo/symbol of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (hereinafter referred to as "PKR") since PH was then unregistered, and they were successfully elected as the State Assemblymen for the constituency seats of Bertam (N. 2) and Telok Bahang (N. 40) respectively.

[9] It is undisputed that the first and second plaintiffs have never been members of PKR. On the other hand, the third and fourth plaintiffs were at the material time in 2018, members of PKR and they contested under the logo of PKR. They were successfully elected as the State Assemblymen for the constituency seats of Sungai Acheh (N. 21) and Seberang Jaya (N. 10).

[10] In or around June 2020, the third and fourth plaintiffs were expelled from their political party, PKR. They now contend that they were not afforded with a prior right to be heard and no reason was given for their expulsion.

[11] On 10 February 2023, a motion was tabled in the first defendant for the four plaintiffs' seats to be vacated pursuant to art 14A of the PSC (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned motion"). The impugned motion was debated during the Penang State Legislative Assembly sitting on 6 March 2023 and was passed. The plaintiffs were then asked to leave the first B defendant on the same day itself which the four plaintiffs duly did.

[12] The Hansard for the Penang State Legislative Assembly sitting on 6 March 2023 reveals that the impugned motion was based/passed on the following grounds/reasons:

(i) in relation to the first and second plaintiffs -