COA reduces Zuraida's payment: No room for representatives to consider party-hopping - Lawyers
There seems to be no issue that the decision would create opportunities for MPs or assemblymen to hop parties more easily.
SHAH ALAM - The Court of Appeal's decision to reduce the amount of damages from RM10 million to RM100,000 against former PKR vice president Datuk Zuraida Kamaruddin for breaching the party bond, does not leave room for any elected representative in the country to simply go on party hopping again.
Lawyer Radzlan Jalal said this was because the decision proved that any bond agreement or contract binding elected representatives to their respective parties was still valid and applicable, even though the amount of damages was reduced based on the consideration and wisdom of the panel of judges.
He said the main factor behind the recent decision by the Court of Appeal, which did not undermine the objective of the bond agreement or the binding contract to prevent party-hopping by elected representatives before the 15th General Election (GE15), was due to the terms and conditions presented being different from the bond terms signed by Zuraida before GE14.
"I don't see any issue that could open up space for elected representatives, whether Members of Parliament (MP) or assemblymen to jump parties more easily.
"Unlike the bond conditions issued by PKR in 2018, the terms of the bond agreement or contract that must be signed by elected representatives of political parties such as Barisan Nasional (BN) before GE15 are in line with the amendments to the respective party constitutions.
"The constitutional amendments of each party except PKR stipulated that it must be in line with the implementation of the Federal Constitution amendment regulations relating to the anti-hopping law which was passed in 2022.
"Therefore, even though the amount of damages is reduced based on the reasonable consideration of the Court of Appeal panel of judges, it does not mean that it is a ticket for elected representatives to encourage the party hopping," he told Sinar.
Radzlan was commenting on the decision of a three-man Court of Appeal panel chaired by Datuk See Mee Chun to partially allow Zuraida's appeal to set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision ordering her to pay RM10 million.
In delivering the verdict, See who sat with judges Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid said the amount of RM10 million was unreasonable.
On June 23, 2023, High Court judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir ordered the former Ampang MP to pay RM10 million after ruling in favour of PKR in the lawsuit against her.
The suit was filed by PKR secretary-general Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail on Sept 28, 2020, on behalf of the party to claim RM10 million from Zuraida for allegedly breaching the bond binding her to the party.
Zuraida, in her statement of defence, claimed that she was forced to sign the bond with the party to become its candidate in GE14 in 2018.
Precedent on the definition of damages
Commenting further, Radzlan said the Court of Appeal's decision in Zuraida's case sets a precedent for determining the amount of damages a party can claim in the event of a breach of bond or contract terms related to party-hopping.
"If any political party enforces a bond or contract agreement prohibiting party-hopping among their elected representatives, this decision currently only serves as a binding precedent for lower courts below the Court of Appeal.
"However, if PKR or Zuraida appeal the case to the Federal Court, the decision made by the panel of judges at that level would establish a binding precedent," he explained.
Meanwhile, lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdullah said the decision in Zuraida's case should provide a positive reference for other parties so that they do not blindly set the value of damages simply to bind the loyalty of elected representatives.
He said the decision to reduce the value of damages was correct because Section 75 of the Contracts Act stated that if a party specified a fixed amount as compensation for a breach of contract, that amount cannot be automatically upheld by the court.
"The panel of judges must have taken into account reasonable considerations where they should have known that the cost of election management expenses for each election candidate is set by the Election Commission and not to exceed RM200,000.
"Additionally, Zuraida has served as an MP and minister for PKR for half of the parliamentary administration term, so it is appropriate for the court to allow damages of RM100,000.
"The court must have also questioned where the relevance of PKR setting a claim of RM10 million is," he said.
Meanwhile, International Islamic University Malaysia law and constitutional expert Associate Professor Dr Khairil Azmin Mokhtar said the bonds or contracts signed by elected representatives were not the only mechanism that worked to prevent them from voting.
He explained that all elected representatives were subjected to Article 49A and Section 7A of the Eighth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which have been incorporated into state constitutions to enforce the ban on party-hopping.
"The provision explains that elected representatives will lose their seats after the Dewan Rakyat or State Legislative Assembly decides that there is a violation of the matter that does not allow them to hop parties.
"All MPs, regardless of whether they sign or breach a contract agreement with their party, are bound by the Federal Constitution, which prohibits them from hopping between parties.
"Thus, while the damages imposed on elected representatives for breaching party bonds may not meet the expectations of their respective parties, the legal provisions against party-hopping still apply," he said.
Khairil added that the existing legal and constitutional context will not allow any mass party-hopping despite the reduction in the value of damages in Zuraida's case.
