Universiti Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharom, who has been charged under the Sedition Act, filed an application today challenging the constitutionality of the law from the period of colonial rule.

"This is an application by Azmi for an order that the sessions court refers the constitutionality of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 to be determined by the High Court.

"Azmi is also seeking an order, in consequence thereof, for the charges against him to be stayed and/or struck out," his lawyer Gobind Singh Deo ( right ) told journalists after filing the application at Jalan Duta Court Complex.

The said act is unconstitutional, Gobind argued, on the grounds:
 
1. That the Sedition Act 1948 was not enacted by Parliament;
 
2. That Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speeches.
 
3. That Article 10 (2) expressly states that only parliament may by law impose restrictions on the rights conferred under Article 10, which we say guarantees freedom of speech.
 
4. The Sedition Ordinance was enacted in 1948, prior to independence. It was thereafter revised through a Law Revision Commission and gazetted as law.
 
5. It was not passed through Parliament and therefore it cannot restrict the rights of Azmi Sharom to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution.
 
Despite there were attempts to challenge the constitutionality of the law previously, Gobind said that this is the first time that the act is being challenged based on the above-mentioned reasons.
 
“This is the first time, to my knowledge, an application is being moved under these grounds, to declare section 4 of the Sedition Act unconstitutional. ”
 
He added that they hoped the hearing of this application could be fixed next week, before the hearing of Azmi’s sedition case on Oct 3.
 
“We have filed a certificate of urgency to expedite the hearing of this application.
 
“We hope that Attorney-General supports our application for the matter to be referred to the High Court under section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for a determination of the constitutional issues raised.
 
“We also hope that the AG will consider staying all prosecutions in sedition cases pending, until this matter is determined, as this is an issue which will effect all prosecutions under this section of the said act,” added Gobind, who is also Puchong MP.
 
Explaining the reason for only the Section 4(1) being challenged, Gobind said this was because “it is the section that makes it an offence” but in essence “they will be looking at the Sedition Act as a whole”.
 
He added that the entire process of judging the constitutionality of the law could be within one year.
 
Azmi (left) , an associate professor of law, on Sept 2 pleaded not guilty to two sedition charges against him and was released on bail of RM5,000. The case has been fixed for mention on Oct 3.

He was charged under Section 4 (1)(b) of the Sedition Act, with an alternative charge under Section 4 (1)(c) of the same Act, for a seditious statement made on Aug 15.

He is accused of writing the seditious statement in an article titled 'Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told', which was published by the Malay Mail Online news portal.  

Azmi has insisted that his statement was made in his capacity as a law lecturer .

 

Related stories

UN concerned over 'arbitrary' sedition swoop

Al Jazeera: Sedition report not censored

Uthaya to be freed on Oct 3 as sentence slashed

Constitutionality of Sedition Act challenged

Gov't aims to sow fear with 'shhhedition' blitz