A former sergeant today obtained court greenlight to proceed with a legal challenge against his discharge for refusing Covid-19 vaccination.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning granted leave to Wan Ramli Wan Seman to proceed with his judicial review against the Armed Forces of Malaysia and four others.
Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly confirmed that judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid this morning gave the greenlight following no objections raised by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
Hanir is from AGC, who represents the government, one of the five respondents in the matter.
“Leave was granted as the AGC has no objections (against the granting of leave),” Hanir said, adding that the court has fixed Nov 11 for case management of the judicial review.
With leave granted today, the court will later set a date to hear submissions from parties on the merits of the judicial review proper.
On Sept 27, Wan Ramly (above), who used to be attached to the Royal Army Regiment’s 24th battalion in Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan, filed the judicial review.
Five respondents
The former soldier named five respondents, namely the Armed Forces of Malaysia and its chief Zamrose Mohd Zain; Lieutenant Colonel Sharull Hesham Md Yasin; Lieutenant Mohamad Azammunir Mohd Ashri; and the government.
Sharull is the commanding officer of Rasah Camp while Azammunir was allegedly the officer who signed the letter of discharge. Both of them were contended to be under the supervision, control, direction and law as well as policy administration of the remaining three respondents.
Wan Ramli is seeking a declaration that the letter of discharge dated Aug 4 this year, as well as his early discharge, is null, void and of no effect.
The 39-year-old also seeks a direction of the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter of discharge, costs, and any other relief deemed fit by the court.
According to the cause papers, Wan Ramli claimed that on July 3, he received instructions from the (army) company clerk at Camp Rasah’s clinic to take the Covid-19 vaccine. However, he exercised his constitutional right not to be vaccinated.
The then soldier claimed that he was then subjected to multiple rounds of interrogation on July 5, 6 and 9, where he was allegedly “put under tremendous pressure and was scolded by some of the officers for refusing to be vaccinated”.
Wan Ramli claimed that on July 10, he was tried by Sharull and charged under four provisions of the Armed Forces Act 1972, namely for disobeying orders to be vaccinated; using threatening or insubordinate language to a superior officer; disobedience to a standing order; and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
He claimed that Sharull denied his request to be court-martialled, which he contended amounted to a serious violation of the rules of natural justice and allegedly deprived him of his livelihood which is safeguarded under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Discharge invalid
Wan Ramli contended that he merely said, “I am still not agreeing to be vaccinated”, which he claimed does not amount to threatening or insubordinate language and that he has a fundamental right to refuse vaccination.
The former sergeant claimed that on Aug 3, he was told that his new discharge was effective from Aug 26 this year, which is much earlier than his normal rate of discharge on Jan 20, 2023.
He contended that the discharge was invalid because, among other reasons, the respondents’ action is disproportionate in all circumstances of the case, amounted to unlawful discrimination, oppressive, irrational and/or unreasonable, and took into account irrelevant considerations.
Wan Ramli also claimed that he lost his right to a pension due to the dishonourable discharge from service, and further contended that the deprivation of his livelihood amounted to a deprivation of the constitutional right to property.- Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.