PUTRAJAYA (June 30): A three-member Federal Court bench has upheld a Court of Appeal decision earlier this year that dismissed the challenge from 12 teachers and Universiti Malaya staff against the requirement to have Covid-19 vaccination.
Federal Court judge Datuk Rhodzhariah Bujang who led the bench ruled that the bench was not persuaded by counsel Adrian Yeow’s submissions towards seeking leave based on five questions of law posed before the apex bench.
“The bench is not persuaded that the questions posed met with the high threshold set under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, to grant leave. Hence the motion for leave is dismissed.”
Rhodzhariah sat with Federal Court judges Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh and Datuk Azmi Ariffin in the unanimous decision.
The bench also ordered the appellants to pay RM50,000 global costs to the UM registrar, the Public Services Department (PSD), the Health Ministry, and the government.
Yeow told the court that the five questions of law touched on the constitutional issue of the appellants’ right under Article 5 with regard to life and liberty, which can extend to the right to not be vaccinated.
“Is vaccination truly necessary? The decision to impose the requirement for vaccination is not rational, and the requirement that those who are not vaccinated cannot attend work is considered irrational, unlawful, and unconstitutional,” the counsel said.
UM has a set of guidelines
Counsel Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Aman, representing the UM registrar, informed the bench that the questions posed were not novel questions of law, and hence the bench should reject them.
“The five questions do not raise novel issues of law. Furthermore, UM and its employees have a set of guidelines whereby staff are expected to abide [by]. This was decided by the High Court and [was] upheld by the Court of Appeal, whereby if someone is not vaccinated, they are not allowed to enter the workplace.”
This averment to the affidavit, Raja Eileen added, was not objected to or denied by the parties.
Meanwhile, Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin for the PSD and the government said the government has a requirement, as stated in a service circular dated Oct 18, 2021, making it mandatory for government employees to take the Covid-19 vaccination.
The appellants, Liew added, have not shown any medical ineligibility exemption to be excluded in taking the vaccination requirement under the guideline.
“None of the applicants have been retrenched, dismissed from employment, or subject to any disciplinary action for their refusal to be vaccinated,” he said, adding that the questions do not meet the threshold for leave to be granted.
On Jan 8, a three-member Court of Appeal bench had dismissed the appellants’ judicial review application, ruling that the measures taken by the government and UM were lawful and aimed at protecting public health.
The appellate bench found that the circulars — which the appellants claimed were coercive and mandatory — were properly issued and within normal bureaucratic management.
“We agree with the respondents (government submission). The direction must be obeyed, provided compliance does not involve illegality, and the directive is reasonable. Hence in our unanimous decision on the issue of illegality and procedural impropriety claimed, we find that the impugned circular is not entered with any illegality,” the judge said.
The Shah Alam High Court had in December 2023, also dismissed their challenge on the requirement to be vaccinated.