The requirements for an election petition under the Election Offences Act necessitate strict adherence to procedural rules, with the burden of proof resting on the Petitioner to establish corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt.

Introduction

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the election petition ("EP") filed by the Petitioner, Ahmad Faisal bin Abdul Karim, challenging the election of the Respondent, Mohd Radzi bin Md Jidin, as the Member of Parliament of the Parliamentary seat of P.125 Putrajaya.

[2] The Respondent was the Perikatan Nasional ("PN") candidate in the Parliamentary seat of P.125 Putrajaya contested in the 15th General Election ("GE-15"), which took place on 15 November 2022 (early voting) and 19 November 2022 (polling day). The Respondent had won the election by a majority of 2,310 votes and was returned as the duly elected Member of Parliament for the Parliamentary seat of P.125 Putrajaya by the Returning Officer on 19 November 2022.

[3] The Petitioner was a voter at the election to which the EP relates and the election agent for one of the unsuccessful candidates - Tengku Adnan bin Tengku Mansur, who was the candidate for Barisan Nasional ("BN") and the incumbent Member of Parliament for P.125 Putrajaya.

[4] In the EP, the Petitioner seeks to avoid the election of the Respondent under s 32(c) of the Election Offences Act ("Act 5"). He alleged that a corrupt practice, specifically the payment of money in the sum of RM150 to voters, was committed in connection with the election by the Respondent or by his agent. He prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the Respondent was not duly elected or ought to have been returned on 19 November 2022 as the Member of Parliament for the Parliamentary seat of P.125 Putrajaya in the GE-15; and

(b) A declaration that the election for the Parliamentary seat for P.125 Putraya is void.

[5] The Respondent raised a preliminary objection against the EP based on the following grounds:

(a) The Petitioner failed to comply with r 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ("EP Rules"), in that he failed to briefly state the facts and grounds relied on to sustain his allegation of corrupt practice under s 32(c) of Act 5;

(b) The Petitioner failed to plead the facts showing that the alleged payment of money was "in connection with the election" so as to enable him to file the EP within 28 days from the date of the alleged payment of money under the proviso in s 38(1) of Act 5; and

(c) The appointment of the Petitioner's advocate did not comply with the mandatory provisions in r 9 of the EP Rules because the Notice of Appointment of Advocate was not stamped.

[6] For the reasons set out in this judgment, I allowed the Respondent's preliminary objection. I found that the EP did not comply with r 4(1)(b) of the EP Rules and had, accordingly, struck it out.

Analysis

[7] The Petitioner had filed the EP on 26 January 2023, which was 22 days from the date he alleged that a PN party worker had paid the sum of RM150 to a voter by the name of Najmi Azamuddin bin Abdul Abas. The EP was filed pursuant to the proviso in s 38(1)(a) of Act 5, which allows an election petition to be filed within 28 days after the payment of a bribe instead of within 21 days of the publication of the election results in the Gazette. The proviso in s 38(1)(a) reads:

38. Time for presentation

(1) Every election petition shall be presented within twenty-one days of the date of publication of the result of the election in the Gazette:

Provided that:

(a) an election petition questioning the return or the election upon the ground of a corrupt practice and specifically alleging a payment of money or other act to have been made or done since the date aforesaid by the person whose election is questioned or by an agent of the person or with the privity of the person or his election agen