The army found itself in court over the discharge from service of a former sergeant who refused Covid-19 vaccination.
Wan Ramli Wan Seman (above), who used to be attached to the Royal Army Regiment’s 24th battalion in Rasah Camp, Negeri Sembilan, today filed a judicial review leave application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
When contacted by Malaysiakini this evening, the former soldier’s counsel Suzana Norlihan Ujen confirmed the filing of the legal action earlier today.
Wan Ramli named the Armed Forces of Malaysia and its chief Zamrose Mohd Zain, Lieutenant Colonel Sharull Hesham Md Yasin, Lieutenant Mohamad Azammunir Mohd Ashri, and the government as the five respondents in the legal action.
Sharull is the commanding officer of Rasah Camp while Azammunir was allegedly the officer who signed the letter of discharge. Both of them were contended to be under the supervision, control, direction, and law as well as policy administration of the remaining three respondents.
Wan Ramli is seeking a declaration that the letter of discharge dated Aug 4 this year, as well as his early discharge, is null, void, and of no effect.
Constitutional right
The 39-year-old also seeks a direction of the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter of discharge, costs, and any other relief deemed fit by the court.
According to the cause papers, Wan Ramli claimed that on July 3, he received instructions from the (army) company clerk at Camp Rasah’s clinic to take the Covid-19 vaccine. However, he exercised his constitutional right not to be vaccinated.
The then soldier claimed that he was then subjected to multiple rounds of interrogation on July 5, 6, and 9, where he was allegedly “put under tremendous pressure and was scolded by some of the officers for refusing to be vaccinated”.
Wan Ramli claimed that on July 10, he was tried by Sharull and charged under four provisions of the Armed Forces Act 1972, namely for disobeying orders to be vaccinated; using threatening or insubordinate language to a superior officer; disobedience to a standing order; and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
He claimed that Sharull denied his request to be court-martialled, which he contended amounted to a serious violation of the rules of natural justice and allegedly deprived him of his livelihood which is safeguarded under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Wan Ramli contended that he merely said “I am still not agreeing to be vaccinated”, which he claimed does not amount to threatening or insubordinate language and that he has a fundamental right to refuse vaccination.
Lost right to pension
The former sergeant claimed that on Aug 3, he was told that his new discharge was effective from Aug 26 this year, which is much earlier than his normal rate of discharge on Jan 20, 2023.
He contended that the discharge was invalid because, among other reasons, the respondents’ action is disproportionate in all circumstances of the case, amounted to unlawful discrimination, oppressive, irrational, and/or unreasonable, and took into account irrelevant considerations.
Wan Ramli also claimed that he lost his right to a pension due to the dishonorable discharge from service, and further contended that the deprivation of his livelihood amounted to a deprivation of the constitutional right to property.
Meanwhile, Suzana explained that the cause papers have yet to be served on the five respondents as the legal action was just filed today.
She said that once the cause papers have been extracted from the court, they would serve copies of the judicial review leave application on the respondents.
“Gopal Sri Ram is also the lead counsel for the applicant (Wan Ramli),” she added in reference to former federal court judge Sri Ram, who is now in private legal practice.
