Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
KUALA LUMPUR, April 26 — The High Court here today set June 30 to hear Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali’s application to strike out a suit filed by 10 Gombak voters against him for alleged deceit and breach of fiduciary duty as the Member of Parliament for the constituency.
His lawyer Nizamuddin Hamid, when contacted, said that on the same day, Justice Datuk Akhtar Tahir will also hear the voters’ application to strike out several paragraphs from Mohamed Azmin’s statement of defence.
According to Nizamuddin, the paragraphs in question contained Mohamed Azmin’s reasons on why he left PKR.
“Both parties are to file their affidavits in reply in respect of the two applications on April 30 while the hearing on June 30 will be conducted via Zoom,” he said after the case management which was conducted through e-review before Deputy Registrar Maslinda Selamat today.
On March 12 this year, Mohamed Azmin filed the application on grounds that the suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and instead it was defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or led to an abuse of the court process as well as ultra vires the Federal Constitution.
The application was made on the grounds that the suit violated the defendant’s fundamental right to freedom of association as provided for under Article 10 Clause (1) (c) of the Federal Constitution.
On November 27 last year, the 10 voters, registered in the Gombak constituency, filed the suit against Mohamed Azmin for alleged deceit and breach of fiduciary duty through the “Sheraton Move” that caused the Pakatan Harapan government to collapse in February last year.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs, aged between 37 and 65, are seeking, among others, a declaration that Mohamed Azmin, as the Gombak MP, had breached his fiduciary obligations, deceived them during the elections in the constituency as well as breached the representation made to them.
The voters claimed that by breaching these representations, the defendant had violated constitutional rights, especially the principles of parliamentary democracy and representative democracy, which form part of the basic structure of the constitution.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are applying for a declaration that the defendant has breached his fiduciary duties and the duties owed, in addition to deceiving them, and as such are seeking damages, including aggravated or exemplary damages, interests, costs and other orders deemed fit by the court. — Bernama