From Matilda George
It was reported that Umno secretary-general Ahmad Maslan would be meeting the Registrar of Societies (RoS) to clear the air regarding the motion that was recently passed on not allowing the top two posts in the party to be contested.
He contended that the motion passed was carried out in accordance with Article 21.1 of the party’s assembly rules.
The RoS is empowered by the Societies Act 1966 and it supervises and oversees all registered societies and ensures that all regulations are followed.
The issue that Umno is facing is unequivocally subject to the rules and constitution of the party.
It is settled law that the members of a registered society are bound by its rules.
If the rules provide that disputes between any member and the society are to be decided by referring to a domestic forum within the framework of the society itself, then it is so.
Under Section 16(1) of the Societies Act 1966, power is given to the RoS to direct a society to settle its dispute. It has no power to determine the validity of the party’s constitution.
Another rationale stemming from Section 7(2)(c) of the Act is that any dispute between parties in a society should, if possible, be determined by members of the body itself.
The interpretation itself shows that the intention of Parliament was to give a narrow and limited scope of duty to the RoS in only giving an opinion to the existence of a dispute and directing the society to settle the dispute by serving a notice to it.
The society may be deregistered as a result of such non-compliance with the notice under Section 13(1).
Hence, Umno is bound by its constitution. Reference should be made to the “Majlis Kerja Tertinggi” under its constitution, since referring to the registrar will be futile.
As a result, the authority to determine the validity of the no-contest decision remains within its internal organisation.
Matilda George is a law graduate and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.