Jan 12 decision on soldier dismissed for refusing Covid-19 jab

 

Wan Ramli Wan Seman had been charged with four military offences, including refusing an order to undergo Covid-19 vaccination.

KUALA LUMPUR: A former army sergeant dismissed for refusing an order to undergo a Covid-19 vaccination will know on Jan 12 whether the High Court will overturn his dishonourable discharge from the military.

Wan Ramli Wan Seman’s lawyer argued in the High Court today that his discharge was unreasonable as he was not given the right to be heard.

Yasmeen Soh Sha-Nisse said her client’s request for a court-martial was refused by his immediate superior, Lt Col Sharull Hesham Yasin.

The request was unlawfully denied, she added.

Wan Ramli, who was with the 24th Battalion Royal Malay Regiment in Rasah, is seeking a judicial review of his dismissal in August last year. He said he was due to be discharged on Jan 20 next year. However, by being dishonourably discharged from service, he had lost his constitutional right to a pension.

He has named his commanding officer, two other officers, the armed forces and the government as respondents.

Soh said that under armed forces regulations, a commanding officer was permitted to deal summarily with the charges only when no request for a court-martial was made.

She said he had the right to be heard on the grounds upon which he refused the Covid-19 vaccination, for which he was later charged.

“As no such opportunity was afforded to the applicant, the decision to dismiss him from service is a nullity,” she argued.

In response, senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly told the High Court that Wan Ramli had been charged with four military offences.

These were: disobeying orders which required him to be vaccinated; using threatening or insubordinate language at a superior officer; disobeying a standing order; and conducting himself in breach of good order and service discipline.

Hanir submitted that Lt Col Sharull had the right to deal with the charges summarily. He contended that Wan Ramli had not been denied the right to be heard as the summary proceeding had also involved a hearing of witnesses.

He said six prosecution witnesses were called, and Wan Ramli was also given the opportunity to defend himself.

“He chose to remain silent. He did not give evidence on oath or make a statement and did not call any witness (to testify) in his defence,” Hanir said.

He asked the court to dismiss Wan Ramli’s application for a judicial review, arguing that the army’s decision was not tainted.

Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid, who heard the application, will deliver his ruling on Jan 12. - FMT