Lawyer: Polls petition against Zahid filed within stipulated time
(Fz.com) – The election petition against Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi (above) by the man he defeated in GE13 was filed in time, a counsel said today, arguing that the common assumption that the filing must be done within 21 days from the polling day is valid.
Edmund Bon, counsel for PKR candidate Madhi Hasan, disputed the argument by Zahid’s lawyer that the petition must be filed within 28 days from the date of the alleged incident cited in the petition.
Madhi is seeking to overturn the home minister’s victory in the Bagan Datoh parliamentray constituency in the May 5 election last year. Zahid was declared the winner after securing 17,176 votes against 15,068 by Madhi.
Madhi, in his petition filed on June 11, claims that on April 19, Zahid had through Bagan Datoh MIC chairperson Supramaniam Ramalingam, given RM100 and five bags of rice to a person named Mustofa Saifudin at Dewan Sanmarka, Simpang Empat, Hutan Melintang.
Supramaniam was also the the BN candidate for the Hutan Melintang state seat in the same election but he lost to PKR’s Kesavan Subramaniam.
Madhi claims that that the cash and rice gifts amount to bribery pursuant to Section 10 (a) of the Election Offences Act (EOA), whereby Zahid had indirectly “given money and valuable consideration” to an elector to induce him to vote for him.
Zahid’s counsel Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun had submitted yesterday that according to EOA, the filling of the any petition relating to a corrupt practice, “must be presented within 28 days” from the date of the alleged incident (April 19).
Disputing this, Bon today submitted that there are two time lines stipulated by the wording of the law, 21 days and 28 days, and therefore the petition still stands.
“The petitioner submits that Section 38(1)(a) EOA does not apply to the act of corrupt practice in this petition because the said provision only relates to allegation of corrupt practice that took place after the (election results are gazetted) on May 22.
“As read in Section 38(1)(a) EOA the words used are “since the date aforesaid” which refer to the words (the date of gazetting).
“Section 38(1)(a) EOA therefore allows for an extension of time rather than shortening of time,” he argued.
Bon said this interpretation of the law was possible as the act of corruption sometimes take place in the manner that half the bribe is paid before the election and another half settled after that.
So some acts of corruption are only complete after the election, he said.
Bon also quoted a case where High Court Judge Ian HC Chin J had ruled that Section 38(1)(a) is not applicable in arguing that the petition was filed within a stipulated time-frame as the corruption occurred even before the election result was released which was the case reported in the petition.
Bon added: “In this case, the petitioner submits that the act complained of was committed on Apr 19 before the publication of the result and therefore Section 38(1)(a) is inapplicable.”
