A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera today allowed the appeal by Siti and S Raveentheran against a High Court ruling which had refused them leave to commence a judicial review.
Vazeer, who sat with Justices Mariana Yahya and Wong Kian Kheong, said the case advanced by the two applicants was not frivolous.
“The High Court judge erred in deciding (at the leave stage) that the applicants should have exhausted the alternative remedy under Section 98(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
“(The availability of) an alternative remedy is not a bar to obtaining leave,” he said in proceedings conducted online.
Vazeer said the matters challenged went beyond the scope of the magistrate’s power under the provision.
“If at all, the limited alternative remedy can be considered when the substantive matter is heard,” he said in making an order that the case be remitted to the High Court to be heard on its merits.
Lawyers A Surendra Ananth, Kee Hui Yee and Allyna Ng appeared for the duo, while senior federal counsel Nik Isfahanie Tasnim Wan Abdul Rahman and federal counsel Ng Wei Li represented the attorney-general and the police.
In its written judgment, the High Court had noted media reports calling for Azam to resign over his alleged ownership of millions of shares in a company.
A “Tangkap Azam Baki” action committee made up of several civil society organisations then announced that it would organise a peaceful assembly on Jan 22, 2022.
A day before the rally, the police announced that it had obtained an order prohibiting any public assembly from taking place at Dataran Merdeka, Sogo and Masjid Jamek.
On rally day, all road and railway access into the area was suspended. Rally organisers, however, shifted the assembly to Bangsar.
Siti, Raveentheran and several others, who had arrived at Sogo, began walking towards Bangsar, but policemen on duty, relying on the magistrate’s order, restricted their movement.
The duo then filed a judicial review to challenge the order, which was opposed by the attorney-general.
Dismissing the application, the High Court ruled that Siti and Raveentheran should have first taken steps to rescind the magistrate’s order before deciding to file for judicial review.