PENAMPANG – After a long wait, four students from Kota Belud who sued their English teacher for skipping classes back in 2018 and 2020 will now have their day in court.
One of the former students of SMK Taun Gusi in the district, Siti Nafirah Siman, now 22, filed her case in 2018. The others – Rusiah Sabdarin, 21, Nur Natasha Allisya Hamali, 21, and Calvina Angayung, 21, collectively filed their case in 2020.
They had named their English teacher Mohd Jainal Jamran and principal Suid Hanapi, along with the Education Department’s director-general, the education minister and the Malaysian government as defendants.
Siti Nafirah is currently a housewife. Rusiah is unemployed, Nur Natasha works in sales, and Calvina is a student at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
The latter three claimed they failed their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia English paper as a result of their teacher, Jainal, being absent from school for months.
Jainal allegedly skipped classes for seven months in 2015 and for four months between March and November 2017.
Siti Nafirah’s case will now be heard on September 12 in the Kota Kinabalu High Court, while the other three will have their case heard on September 5.
Speaking at a press conference today, the women alleged that there have been various attempts to have them withdraw their cases and undermine their fight for justice, resulting in their cases taking years to go to trial.
They also want to raise public awareness over their case.
Siti Nafirah said the government tried to strike out her case after a high court judge had allowed her interlocutory application in July 2019.
A judge has ordered the defendants to submit missing evidence to the court and also instructed them to respond to the plaintiff’s queries specifically.
“The defendants objected to both of my applications initially and asked the court to reject my applications.
“Alhamdulilah, the high court ruled in favour of me… shortly after, the defendants also lost to those two complaints, they tried to strike out my case.
“But in September 2019, the high court ruled in my favour again. The judge believed my case is worthy of a full public trial, with witnesses, evidence, testimony and an independent judgement,” she said.
Rusiah, Nur Natasha and Calvina claimed that they were forced to obtain an injunction to stop the defendants from harassing them.
They also claimed that they had to wait 181 days for the defendants to file their defence at the high court, after the 11-page statement of claim was submitted on December 22, 2020.
“Between January 2021 to May 2021, and four court mentions, the defendants filed no defence at the high court. We released a statement in May 2021, noting that we had already waited for 135 days without (the defence being filed).
“Then, the defendants took an additional one and a half months to respond. In total, we were forced to wait 181 days after our filing on December 22, 2020, until they filed their defence,” said Calvina.
She said the defendants had taken additional judicial actions to force them to withdraw their case during the time they did not file their defence statements.
Calvina claimed that on January 22, 2021 her schoolmate Rusiah was called by the school principal, who at the time was Nuzie Mohd Balus, for a closed-door meeting.
Rusiah was in Form 6 at the time and secretly recorded her conversation with the principal.
“He (Nuzie) had already met her family privately, who had been coerced into pressuring Rusiah to drop her case,” alleged Calvina, additionally claiming that they were three other men in the meeting.
“Nuzie and the others then questioned Rusiah repeatedly on her court case, her claims, her intentions, brought up her brief absences (in school) when Rusiah had been caring for her sick father, and even her home’s safety, and whether she owned a CCTV system,” she alleged.
Calvina also alleged the principal had pressured Rusiah’s father a few weeks earlier at her home.
She said that on April 26, 2021 she had taken the audio recording and filed a court injunction, and on September 7, 2021 the high court issued a restraining order against the defendants. – The Vibes, September 2, 2022
.jpeg)
