Anina's membership automatically nullified after she filed suit against party, court told

Lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said Anina had breached the party's Constitution, and as an UMNO member, Anina was bound by the party's rules and regulations.

He was representing UMNO secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and UMNO executive-secretary Datuk Ab Rauf Yusoh in a suit filed by Anina against them.

"It is not a provision of law but a provision of contract. Whatever the rules of the parties, members are legally bound. This contract is agreed upon in UMNO.

"If you break any law or the moment you bring action to court, the membership will drop automatically," said Mohd Hafarizam in his submissions before Judicial Commissioner S.Nantha Balan.

Mohd Hafarizam further argued that Anina could not use provisions in the Federal Constitution to challenge her sacking from UMNO.

Today the court heard the application by Tengku Adnan and Ab Rauf to strike out the suit filed by Anina last Aug 28 to challenge her termination as an UMNO member.

Anina was terminated from UMNO after she filed the suit against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib 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 in Singapore.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, acting for Anina, argued that the first defendant (Tengku Adnan) had failed to follow procedures in the UMNO Constitution in relation to two letters to remove the plaintiff from UMNO.

He said the issuance of both letters, dated Sept 1 and 2, to the media and public by Tengku Adnan, without initially conducting personal service to the plaintiff, was defective and illegal.

"The plaintiff only knew about her termination in UMNO after it went viral in the social media," he said, adding that the plaintiff only knew about the letters when Tengku Adnan disseminated them to the media and public on Sept 1 and 2, 2015.

He said it was a common practice for superior to issue notice or letter before dismissing or removing a subordinate.

However, Mohd Hafarizam countered, saying that it was just for formality.

He submitted that UMNO was a political party registered under the Societies Act 1966, where Section 18C of the act clearly stated that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case relating to the affairs of a political party.

As such, he said, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain Anina's suit as the issue in the dispute involved a political party's decision based on its constitution.

The court fixed Dec 7 to decide on Tengku Adnan and Ab Rauf's application to strike out Anina's suit.