The Kuala Lumpur High Court has set June 11 for a decision whether to call lawyer Karpal Singh to enter his defence on a charge of allegedly uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak during a press conference on Feb 6, 2009.

Justice Azman Abdullah fixed the date after hearing submissions from Deputy Public Prosecutor Noreen Badaruddin and counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, who acted for Karpal Singh.

Noreen at the end of the prosecution's case had submitted that the court should take into consideration the key ingredients brought forward by the prosecution in proving a prima facie case against Karpal Singh after calling 19 witnesses.

sibu by election karpal singh Said Noreen, Karpal Singh had indeed uttered words that bordered on sedition and of a seditious nature at the press conference. She argued that the words could instill hatred, were insulting and might lead to disloyalty against the ruler.

She explained that the words used at the press conference clearly showed that Karpal Singh ( right ) had questioned the Sultan's actions in appointing Zambry Abdul Kadir as the new menteri besar of Perak.

She said that this was a very sensitive matter in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Malaysia especially when one of the ethnic groups held the Malay rulers in very high esteem, and as such, should not be viewed lightly.

She added that although the federal constitution allowed the Malay rulers to be brought to court, Karpal Singh's actions could still be deemed as insulting the Sultan.

She concluded by saying that Karpal Singh could have opted to say politely that the Sultan might have made a mistake or was confused in his actions, but he did not do this.

A total of 19 witnesses had testified in the trial, among them deputy director of RTM TV News Roslan Ariffin and Utusan Malaysia reporter Nizam Mohd Yatim.

Prima facie case

On March 17 last year, Karpal Singh claimed trial to a charge of uttering seditious words at the press conference pertaining to the Sultan of Perak, at his office, Tetuan Karpal Singh & Co, Jalan Pudu Lama, here between noon and 12.30pm on Feb 6.

He is charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and faces a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years' imprisonment, or both, if found guilty.

Meanwhile, counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo ( below ) submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charge and failed to establish a prima facie case against Karpal.

NONE "The charge against the accused (Karpal) cannot be sustained and the accused ought therefore to be acquitted and discharged without his defence being called," submitted Jagjeet.

He said the actual contents of the press statement made by Karpal Singh and his comments in the question and answer session held on Feb 6, in fact had established that his statements fell within exception in Section 3(2)(a) of the Sedition Act.

Jagdeep further submitted that it was an undisputed fact that whatever Karpal Singh said at the press conference were not reported fully, as only certain parts were extracted and reported by the print and electronic media, as well as news portals.

He contended that there was a massive gap in the prosecution's case whereby in their opening statement had stated that Karpal Singh's press statement had resulted in 103 people lodging police reports against him.

"Not only these people (103 reports) relied on incomplete news reports appearing mainly in Utusan Malaysia, RTM, Malaysiakini and other media, but the prosecution only called three of them who admitted that they had only watched the TV3 news when in fact this court on March 16 had ruled that the news clip from TV3 was inadmissible," submitted Jagdeep.

Expressing legal opinion

He further submitted that the court should only consider evidence given before it and not external matters put forth by the prosecution like the demonstration held in a mosque in Kuala Kangsar, Perak, which had nothing to do with the case but the prosecution was claiming it was triggered by Karpal Singh's remarks.

Jagdeep pointed out that Karpal was merely giving his views on the issue from the legal standpoint.

Jagdeep concluded by saying that if anyone ought to be charged for sedition, RTM should be the one as on Feb 6, 2009 the station in its news edition at 6pm and 8pm had used the words – ‘ penderhakaan kepada institusi raja ’ (betrayal of the royal institution) whereby even Roslan from RTM had agreed during cross-examination that they were harsh words to use.

Karpal Singh who also submitted briefly said he was just merely expressing his legal opinion and legal opinions could not be interpreted as sedition as they were within his judicial authority.

He told the court that decision on his case had far reaching consequences and that the trial judge should act without fear or favour.

– Bernama