KUALA LUMPUR: Four activists have launched a legal challenge against the Besut District Council (MDB) for the recent killing of a stray dog known as 'Kopi' in Besut, Terengganu.
Kartini Farah Abd Rahim, S. Mukunnan, Hong Hai San, and S. Shashi Kumar filed the suit through Messrs Raj & Sach at the Kuala Terengganu High Court last week.
They named MDB and the Terengganu state government as the first and second defendants, respectively.
At a press conference held at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex today, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, said the court had set Jan 15 to hear the case.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the killing of Kopi by MDB violates Section 29(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (AWA 2015).
They are also seeking a declaration that the shooting of the stray dog using a firearm by MDB contravenes Section 30(1) of the Act, and that such an act is prohibited under Section 30(2).
Section 30(1) explicitly states that shooting any dog, cat, or other animal using firearms is not allowed, except with the authorisation of veterinary authorities in emergency situations or for disease control purposes.
The activists also wanted the court to declare that the use of firearms is strictly limited to conditions outlined in Section 30(1) and cannot be used for killings under Section 30(2) of the same Act.
In a supporting affidavit, Kartini Farah claimed residents in Besut were startled by several gunshots at 1.30am on Oct 6.
She claimed several of them went to investigate and saw three MDB officers patrolling the area in a pickup truck.
She claimed one of the MDB agents or employees was seen inside the truck firing shots at a stray dog, identified as Kopi, from the vehicle.
Following the shooting spree, residents and individuals discovered Kopi's body, abandoned by MDB, with visible gunshot wounds.
On Oct 13, MDB chairman Sukeri Ibrahim defended the council's action by claiming the move aligned with standard operating procedures established by the Housing and Local Government Ministry.
The council's actions, he said, were also aligned with Section 30 of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, which permits the use of firearms under certain circumstances.
He also rejected claims that the council officers had abandoned the dog's remains after shooting it.