Court throws out Anina's suit over her expulsion from UMNO

The High Court has struck out former Langkawi Wanita UMNO member Anina Saadudin's suit over her expulsion from UMNO, ruling that it had no jurisdiction to hear her dispute in the party.

Judicial Commissioner S.Nantha Balan said it was clear that Section 18C of the Societies Act 1966, did not permit the court to adjudicate on the dispute pertaining to Anina's membership in UMNO.

He said the section had very clearly delineated and excluded the court to hear and determine matters involving the disputes and affairs of a political party.

"Since the coming into force of Section 18C of the Societies Act 1966, all attempts by disgruntled party members to take their grievances to court have failed," he said.

In allowing UMNO secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and UMNO executive secretary Datuk Ab Rauf Yusoh's application to strike out Anina's suit, Nantha Balan said in theory a political party could decide willy-nilly to sack or suspend whoever they wished and for whatever reason.

"That is not to say or imply that the plaintiff here has ceased to be a member of UMNO for flippant reasons. On the contrary, she ceased to be a member of UMNO because she allegedly violated Clause 20.7 of the UMNO constitution in taking a matter to court," he said.

Anina's party membership was terminated after she filed the suit against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Ab. Rauf, among others, to reclaim a portion of the RM2.6 billion (US$650 million) donation that was allegedly deposited by the party president into his personal account.

Nantha Balan explained that the rights and wrongs of the position taken by UMNO to treat the plaintiff as a ceased or expelled member of UMNO, after she filed the suit was not within the purview of the court.

"I am not for a moment suggesting that the plaintiff's complaints before this court vis-a-vis her cessation of membership in UMNO are unmeritorious. The law of Section 18C simply does not allow for her complaints to be adjudicated by the court," he said.

He further said that pursuant to Clause 20.11.2 of the party's constitution, Anina could make an appeal after three years for her membership to be reinstated.

He said no doubt, the three-year wait was too long and it might be meaningless to apply as the landscape might well have changed by then, but unfortunately those were the contractual terms upon which Anina agreed to become an UMNO member.

"And so she has no choice but to abide by those rules," said Nantha Balan and ordered Anina to pay total costs of RM5,000 to both defendants.

He said Anina's UMNO membership termination or cessation was not the result of any decision by the UMNO disciplinary machinery, but her expulsion came automatically upon the filing of the suit against Najib and Ab Rauf.

Nantha Balan said the two letters to remove the plaintiff from UMNO were mere formalities to notify her of her status as a ceased member of UMNO.

On Oct 5, Anina, 40, filed the suit against Tengku Adnan and Ab Rauf, among others, seeking an order that the two termination letters issued by Tengku Adnan were invalid and had no effect on her membership.

The duo then filed the application to strike out the suit on the grounds, among others, that Section 18C clearly stated that the court had no jurisdiction to hear a case relating to the affairs of a political party.

Outside the court, lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun who represented Tengku Adnan and Ab Rauf, told reporters that he would adopt today's judgment in another suit over the RM2.6 billion (US$650 million) donation involving Anina against Najib and Ab Rauf.

Anina, who was present in court, was represented by lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla.