Okay for students to take on UM
Undergraduates get the nod to challenge disciplinary action taken against them
SHAH ALAM: Five Universiti Malaya students, who were penalised for their involvement in a talk featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim last year, have been allowed to challenge the disciplinary actions meted out against them.
The five are former UM Undergraduates Association (PMUM) president Fahmi Zainol, Pro-Mahasiswa chairman Safwan Shamsuddin, Adam Fistival Wilfrid, PMUM vice president Haw Yu Hong and UM Muslim Students Association president Khairol Najib Hashim.
Four of them turned up yesterday when the High Court allowed their application for leave to initiate judicial review proceedings.
Outside the court, they cheered the court ruling.
Fahmi and Safwan said they were happy as it would allow them to challenge the decision of the UM’s students' disciplinary committee which had either suspended or fined them or issued stern warnings over their alleged involvement in the talk.
Yesterday, High Court Judicial Commissioner Azimah Omar granted leave to the five students for a judicial review application. JC Azimah said the students had made a case for her to allow the application for leave.
“It is not frivolous or vexatious for the case to be heard on its merits,” said the students' lead counsel Aston Paiva, who was assisted by co-counsel New Sin Yew. JC Azimah set July 23 for case management before a senior assistant registrar.
Senior Federal Counsel Hani Aziza Ismail appeared for the Attorney-General's Chambers, saying that it was due to it being a matter of public interest.
Lawyer Damian Kiethan, who acted for UM, said they would get further directives to argue on its merits during the hearing of the judicial review.
In their application for leave, the students said that UM’s students disciplinary committee had on Dec 9 last year found them guilty of respective charges without giving them a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and inspect any documents in the matter.
They said the decision of the disciplinary committee was invalid, unreasonable and that there were errors of law and procedural unfairness in their case.
The students filed the application on May 11 and named the UM students’ disciplinary committee, its appeal committee, its board of directors, its treasurer and the university as respondents.
They wanted to set aside their punishments and get a declaration that UM (Discipline of Students) Rules 1999 and all charges were invalid.
Among others, they want the university treasurer to return the fines paid by the students over their alleged misconduct.