PUTRAJAYA, Jan 19 – The Court of Appeal ruling that the government has no right to sue organisers of the Bersih rally to recover losses for damaged public property incurred in the rally, stands. This follows the Federal Court decision today, in dismissing the government’s application for leave to appeal against that appellate court landmark decision.

A three-man bench comprising Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Hasan Lah and Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin did not make any orders on costs. Under the law, litigants wishing to appeal a Court of Appeal decision in a civil case, must obtain leave from the Federal Court.

Since the Federal Court did not grant leave to the government, it cannot bring the matter up for appeal to the Federal Court. Lawyer Tommy Thomas told reporters that following today’s Federal Court decision, the decision of the appellate court which held that the government did not fall within the category of persons that could make a claim for damages against rally organisers was maintained.

He represented former Bersih co-chairman Datuk S. Ambiga who was among 14 Bersih 2.0 steering committee members being sued by the government. The government claimed that the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28, 2012 had caused damage to public property and sought special compensation of RM110,543.27 in cost to repair 16 damaged police vehicles.

It also wanted a declaration that the respondents as organisers of the rally had violated Section 6 (2)(g) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 to ensure the gathering would not cause damage to public property. On Jan 30, last year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur dismissed the government’s lawsuit and it was also unsuccessful in its appeal at the Court of Appeal which prompted the government to file an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

In the court proceedings earlier, Senior Federal Counsel Alice Loke Yee Ching submitted the government was entitled to claim damages from the organisers because they breached the statutory duty under Section 6 (2) (g) of the PAA which stated that an assembly should ensure that it would not cause damage to property.

She posed a legal question on Section 6 (2) (g) of the PAA which she said was a new piece of legislation which required the court’s determination. Thomas argued that the government’s leave application should be dismissed because the appeal was doomed to fail and the legal question posed was frivolous. He said the government did not have the right to sue for property damage because it was not categorised as “other persons” under Section 3 of the PAA to be able to make a claim for damages. — Bernama

Pocket News

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.