KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 25): The High Court will on Feb 4 decide whether to allow Party Muda a judicial review against the government, namely the Registrar of Society (ROS) and the Minister of Home Affairs Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin for not registering the party.

During an online hearing today, Judge Datuk Seri Mariana Haji Yahya had set the date after hearing arguments from Muda’s team of lawyers on the merits of having the court allow a judicial review.

The lawyers representing Muda are former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and Lim Wei Jiet.

Lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers acting on behalf of the ROS and Hamzah are senior federal counsels Ahmad Hanir Hambaly, Mohd Sabri Othman and Kogilambigai Munusamy.

Ahmad Hanir argued that Muda had not exhausted all domestic remedies, namely appealing under Section 18 of Societies Act by the stipulated deadline given by the ROS.

Muda, a party started through former Youth and Sports Minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman together with its 12 founding members, is seeking to challenge ROS’ decision to refuse its registration as a party.

In his affidavit sighted by The Edge, Syed Saddiq claimed that Hamzah, who oversees the ROS, had told him that his party would be registered and approved if he pledged to support the current Perikatan Nasional coalition.

Syed Saddiq even claimed that Hamzah had asked him to refrain from voting on government bills he opposed as part of the deal. The Muar MP claims that this took place during a budget meeting when he had enquired Hamzah about his party’s application.

After that Syed Saddiq said the party’s application was rejected on Jan 6 via an email from ROS, but no reason was given for the rejection.

After today’s proceeding, Muda’s lawyers had released a statement rebutting the argument of the senior federal counsel, saying that the minister had “pre-judged the matter” thus it would not be of any utility to seek domestic remedies and appeal to him.

“Further, and in any event, the court is not precluded from considering this matter at the substantive stage,” it said.

“Muda’s main grounds for judicial review are that the minister had acted in bad faith, that there was no basis in law to reject Muda’s application, and that this was a breach of the right to form associations and the right to vote guaranteed under our Federal Constitution,” the statement from the lawyers read.