Does the ‘no-contest’ motion breach Umno’s constitution?

 

From Ibrahim M Ahmad

Umno members may want to question the legitimacy of a controversial motion proposed at the party’s general assembly on Friday evening calling for its top two posts to be uncontested.

If passed, the motion will see party president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, and his deputy Mohamad Hasan (or Tok Mat as he is popularly known), retain their seats for another three-year term without subjecting themselves to a vote.

The bid to push through the motion became apparent after Tok Mat hinted at it when speaking to the press after delivering his speech on the opening day. He was quickly followed by Wanita chief Noraini Ahmad, Puteri leader Zahida Zarik Khan and several others.

Speaking to the assembly on Friday morning, Zahid himself waded in on the matter.

“There are those who do not want the posts to be contested, and just as many who do. As one who believes in the democratic process, I leave it to the delegates to determine this,” he said.

That is a curious statement by someone who says he believes in the “democratic process”.

Zahid should know that any “democratic process” undertaken for the purpose of selecting leaders of an organisation must involve the conduct of an election to determine who has the confidence of the general body of voters to assume any particular post.

Therefore, a sitting president who “believes in the democratic process” must submit himself to an election to determine whether he retains the confidence of delegates to continue in office.

Asking the floor to determine whether there should be a vote at all is in itself undemocratic.

In Umno’s case, it is also probably unconstitutional.

Article 9(3) of the party’s constitution prescribes that an election for the posts of president and deputy president (as well as several other positions) must be conducted once every three years.

There is nothing in the constitution that allows for an exception to this requirement.

Any suggestion that the general assembly can override Article 9(3) is misplaced.

Article 8(1) says that the general assembly is “the highest authority of the party” and that “the party shall be run under its authority and direction” but “subject to its constitution and regulations.”

What that means is that the general assembly’s authority is not unlimited but is subject to the provisions in the party’s constitution.

Since the party’s constitution specifically provides for elections triennially and gives the general assembly no specific power to prevent an election from taking place, the motion tabled before the general assembly is probably ultra vires the constitution, and therefore void.

I wonder if the Registrar of Societies has an opinion on this.

In any case, if Umno wants to project itself as a champion of democracy and the rule of law, it must first show itself to be capable of adhering to true democratic principles. - FMT

Ibrahim M Ahmad is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.