Karpal's sedition trial: Objection decision next week

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today fixed next Tuesday to decide on a preliminary objection raised by DAP leader Karpal Singh in the sedition trial against him.

His objection is related to an alleged procedural defect by the attorney-general in framing the charge against him.

He wants Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah to grant him a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

Karpal, who is the DAP Bukit Gelugor MP, was charged with sedition in Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on March 17 in relation to his threat to sue the Sultan of Perak over the political crisis in the state.

The case was then transferred to the High Court on March 23 following an order signed by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail dated March 16. Karpal had not objected to the transfer.

Karpal is charged under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act for uttering seditious statements based on a transcript at his office at No 67, Jalan Pudu Lama, Kuala Lumpur between noon and 12.30pm on Feb 6, 2009.

If found guilty, he faces a maximum jail sentence of three years or a RM5,000 fine or both. Subsequent offences are punishable with a maximum jail sentence of five years.

Karpal is on a RM2,000 bail with one surety.

Earlier in court, the senior counsel who is representing himself submitted that the consent given by the attorney-general should have preceded the charge that was preferred against him.

Chicken and egg question

This, he said, was to fulfill the requirements of Section 5 of the Sedition Act, which states that ‘no person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 (which Karpal is facing) without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor'.

"A non-compliance with this provision will result in the consent which is a requirement to this case to be defective," said Karpal.

"If this pre-requisite stands unfulfilled, legal proceedings, if continued, would amount to a nullity. The egg must precede the chicken. Similarly, consent must be given first before the charge is made."

Karpal also submitted that as the case concerns written consent, it must also be shown whether the attorney-general had ‘employed deep consideration' before proceeding with the case.

He pointed out that the consent by the attorney-general stated the date and place but it did not set out or provide an annexure of the alleged seditious words that were uttered.

"How could the AG have applied his mind on whether or not to prosecute me if the consent - on the face of it - does not set out the alleged seditious words having regard to the fact that at this point of time, the charge was yet to come into existence," he asked.

"The charge is formulated only after a valid consent is issued. Merely saying ‘uttering seditious words' does not fulfill the requirements of the law with regards to written consent."

‘Dismiss objection' call

Karpal submitted that the attorney-general did not consider his apparent defence to the annexed charge as it fulfilled section 3(2)(a) of the Sedition Act.

The section states ‘notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious namely (a) to show that any ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures'.

Karpal contended that during his press conference on the day of the charge, he had said that the sultan should carefully consider what he had in fact done and called upon the sultan to act under Article 64 of the Perak constitution.

Senior Federal Counsel Kamaluddin Mohd Said submitted the prosecution had fulfilled all requirements for the case and that the court should continue to fix the trial dates as it had already recorded Karpal's pleadings.

He said it was not necessary for the attorney-general to attach the seditious words to the consent letter as the words were on the charge sheet.

Kamaluddin urged the court to dismiss Karpal's preliminary objection. The court then fixed next Tuesday for a decision.