Azmi Sharom’s lawyers apply to court to review Sedition Act’s constitutionality BY ANISAH SHUKRY Published: 17 September 2014 The Sedition Acts constitutionality is being challenged by lawyers of Universiti Malaya professor Azmi Sharom, who was charged under the colonial era law earlier this month. The lawyers filed an application today for the courts to review the constitutionality of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948. Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo told reporters that the Sedition Act 1948 was unconstitutional as it was not enacted by Parliament, and that it violated Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. This is an application by Dr Azmi Sharom for an order that the Sessions Court refer to the High Court for its determination, the constitutionality of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948. Dr Azmi also seeks an order in consequence, thereof, for the charges against him to be stayed and/or struck out, Gobind said after filing the application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today. On September 2, Azmi, a law lecturer with Universiti Malaya, was charged under Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(1)(c) of the Act over his comments in a news article titled Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told. If convicted under either charges, he will face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or jailed up to three years, or both. Gobind said today that Article 10(2) of the constitution states that by law, only Parliament may impose restrictions on the rights under Article 10, which guarantees freedom of speech. The Sedition Ordinance was enacted in 1948, prior to independence. It was thereafter revised through a Law Revision Commission and gazetted as law. It was not passed through Parliament and therefore it cannot restrict the rights of Dr Azmi Sharom to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution. It is therefore unconstitutional, said Gobind. He said this was the first time such an application was being moved on these grounds to declare Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act unconstitutional. A similar application had been filed for activist Haris Ibrahim at the High Court, said Gobind, but it had been struck out on technical grounds by the Attorney-Generals Chambers (AGC). The AGC were of the view that we should move an application in the Sessions Court itself... so this is what we are doing now in Professor Azmis case. He added that they had filed a certificate of urgency to expedite the hearing, which he hoped would take place next week. We also hope that the Attorney-General will consider staying all prosecutions in sedition cases until this matter is determined as this is an issue which will affect all prosecutions under this section of the said Act. Sabah politician David Orok was prosecuted under the same law on September 3 for allegedly insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammad on Facebook two months ago. On September 5, Muhammad Safwan Anang, a former chairman of Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia, was found guilty of sedition and sentenced to 10 months’ jail over a speech delivered on May 13 last year. Three days later, activist Ali Abd Jalil pleaded not guilty in the Selayang Sessions Court to a sedition charge for allegedly belittling the Johor Sultanate on Facebook in January and calling for the states royal institution to be abolished. He was re-arrested on the same day, under the same law, after posting bail, for allegedly insulting the Sultan of Selangor on Facebook in August. On September 10, Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin claimed trial to a sedition charge for having allegedly insulted the Sultan of Selangor in a Facebook post in November. Padang Serai MP N.Surendran (PKR), Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad (PAS), and Seri Delima assemblyman R.S.N.Rayer (DAP) have all been charged with sedition. Seputeh MP Teresa Kok (DAP), Batu MP Tian Chua (PKR) and activist Haris Ibrahim are also facing trial for sedition. – September 17, 2014.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:31:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015