May 30 hearing of legal challenge by ex-soldier who refused vaxx

 

A former soldier’s legal action over his discharge following his refusal of Covid-19 vaccination is set for hearing on May 30.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan today confirmed that the hearing date was set by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The SFC was referring to hearing of the merits of the judicial review by applicant Wan Ramli Wan Seman (above), who used to be attached to the Royal Army Regiment’s 24th battalion in Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan.

Shamsul represents the five respondents targeted by the legal action, 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 federal 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.

On Sept 27 last year, Wan Ramly, who used to be attached to the Royal Army Regiment’s 24th battalion in Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan, filed the judicial review.

Letter of discharge

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 last year, 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 last year, 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-martialed, 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.

Refuse vaccination

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 last year, he was told that his new discharge was effective from Aug 26 last 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.

On Oct 28 last year, the High Court granted leave for the applicant to proceed with the judicial review, following no objections raised by the AGC in the matter.

This means that May 30 would be hearing of the merits of the legal action. - Mkini