MK Schedules Dismissal Session of Baubau Regional Election on August 10 2018


Imam Ridho Angga Yuwono: LOOKING SWEET God willing, Win

BAUBAUPOST.COM, JAKARTA – The Constitutional Court (MK) through its official website announced the dismissal decision schedule or interlocutory decision related to the disputed Regional Head Election (Pilkada) 2018. Especially for Baubau Regional Election, the lawsuit filed by HYF-Ahmad Couples and Couples Rossy will be read out on the verdict on Friday (08/10) at 08.30 WITA.

The pair H Yusran Fahim and Ahmad MM (HYF-Ahmad) filed a lawsuit with case number 20 / PHP. KOT-XVI / 2018, while the pair Hj Roslina Rahim and La Ode Yasin (Rossy) filed a lawsuit with case number 19 / PHP. KOT- XVI / 2018. Where this case has been tried in the early stages on July 26, 2018, and the parties concerned and the defendant have also been heard about at the follow-up hearing at the end of July.

Legal Counsel of Dr HAS Tamrin MH – La Ode Ahmad Monianse (Sweet Appearance) Imam Riddho Angga Yuwono SH said he remained optimistic that the lawsuit of the two candidate pairs (Paslon) would be rejected in dismissal’s decision. He argued that based on the previous experience of simultaneous elections in the second phase of 2016, claims that did not meet formal requirements and did not have legal standing would be rejected.

“Moreover, based on the next schedule, which is on 16 August to 10 September 2018, the Constitutional Court scheduled a follow-up examination, meaning that the trial at that time was a verification session. While the dismissal trial scheduled for August 9-15, 2018 has been scheduled which areas have been scheduled in the Constitutional Court, meaning the Constitutional Court will reject the lawsuit that does not meet the formal requirements, “he said.

According to Angga, the nickname of Imam Ridho Angga Yuwono, Baubau City had been scheduled for its official hearing on August 10, 2018, meaning that the great opportunity for HYF-Ahmad and Rossy’s lawsuit would be rejected by the Constitutional Court. In other words, the Constitutional Court did not accept the petitioners’ requests. (AT/SPECIAL)


Pin It on Pinterest

Share This