Court allows constitutional challenge on sedition

 

Padang Serai MP N Surendran succeeded today in referring two questions challenging the constitutionality of the Sedition Act to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

In allowing two out of three questions to proceed, Sessions Judge Ahmad Bache ordered a stay on the Sessions Court proceedings.

"Hence, the court orders a stay in proceedings of the Sessions Court pending the case being referred to the High Court," said Ahmad.

Surendran, who is also a PKR central committee member, was charged with sedition following the comments he made on YouTube regarding the Court of Appeal decision over the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial.

The two questions that were allowed are:

• Whether the Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional or otherwise

• Whether the Act breaches three provisions in the Federal Constitution, namely the liberty of the person; equality; and freedoms of speech, assembly and association.

Ahmad, however, did not allow the third question, on whether the Sedition Act 1948 is unconstitutional since the question of intention does not need to be proven.

Surendran, who is also a lawyer, was represented by M Puravalen and Latheefa Koya.

Outside Sessions Court's jurisdiction

Ahmad ruled to refer the constitutional question to the High Court since the Sessions Court does not have jurisdiction to make a decision on the matter.

The judge said since the case of Universiti Malaya academician Azmi Sharom (above) was also referred to the apex court, hence this case should also be referred.

“These two constitutional questions are not new as they have been referred to the Federal Court in Azmi’s case.

"Hence, if we were to continue with this trial and the apex court gives a decision in Azmi’s favour, the proceeding here (at the Sessions Court) would be considered nugatory,” he said.

Ahmad said he held a similar view with the DPP that intention need not be proven in a sedition charge and for this reason, he is not allowing the third question.

Latheefa told Malaysiakini that since Surendran was successful in transferring the case to the High Court, they have decided to also appeal the Sessions judge’s decision in not allowing the third question.