The Kuala Lumpur High Court today threw out DAP veteran and senior lawyer Karpal Singh's preliminary objection raised with regards to his sedition trial.

Karpal's objection was related to an alleged procedural defect, in which he had argued that the written consent by the attorney-general in framing the charge against him, was defective.

umno youth demonstration against karpal singh 100209 10 Previously, the defence argued that the "written consent of the public prosecutor (is) mandatorily required before the commencement of the prosecution for an offence under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act."

Therefore, Karpal, who is representing himself, said the charge was null as it "lacked pertinent particulars going to the root of the said written consent."

In view of this, Karpal wanted Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah to grant him a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

However, Azman in his judgement on the objection stated that the written consent issued is similar to those issued for other cases with heavier penalties.

Karpal then said his defence team would be filing an appeal on the judicial commissioner's decision.

Other counsels representing Karpal are his sons Ram Karpal, Gobind Singh Deo and his daughter Sangeet Kaur. The prosecution was conducted by Deputy Public Prosecutor Manoj Kurup.

Trial to commence on Aug 12

The court then set Aug 12-14 and Aug 18-21 for the hearing. The trial dates were set for a duration of two weeks as the prosecution had listed 45 witnesses to take the stand.

Karpal was charged on March 17 in relation to his threat to sue Perak ruler Sultan Azlan Shah over the political turmoil in the state in February.

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

The DAP parliamentarian for Bukit Gelugor had reportedly said the Perak ruler could be taken to court in his official capacity for endorsing the removal of Pakatan Rakyat's Perak menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin.

According to the transcript, Karpal had allegedly said: "With that ruling of the Federal Court which has stood the test of time for 32 years, beyond a pale of a doubt, the Sultan of Perak has contravened Article 16(6) of the constitution of the state of Perak.

"In my view, until such time the assembly has invoked the provision of Article 33(1), both Mohd Osman Jailu and Jamaludin Mohd Radzi remain PKR assemblypersons, together with Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong remaining with the DAP until her resignation letter was subjected to determination by the assembly pursuant to Article 33(1), thereby causing the Pakatan Rakyat to have 31 members in the assembly of 60 members.

"It cannot therefore be said that the sultan of Perak (rightly) acted intra vires (when) in fact (he) acted ultra vires Article 16(6) when he determined that Menteri Besar (Mohd) Nizar Jamaludin had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly and was therefore required to tender resignation of the executive council over which he presided including his own resignation.

"Clearly the sultan of Perak cannot invoke his powers under Article 16(1), which states 'His Royal Highness shall appoint an executive council', to appoint a Barisan Nasional executive council with a new menteri besar and a new government. The government of Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaludin still had constitutional supremacy and legitimacy. The actions of the sultan of Perak are clearly premature."

If found guilty, Karpal 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.

This is Karpal's second sedition charge. The first was in 2001 while he was the lead defence counsel for former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim during the corruption trial in 1999.

Karpal, at that time, stated that Anwar's health had worsened "due to a high-level conspiracy to poison him with arsenic" while in detention.

However, the charge was later withdrawn by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.