The Sedition Act 1948 violates freedom of speech guaranteed under the federal constitution, the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya heard today.

Submitting before a three-man panel of the court, lawyer M Manoharan said the Act was unconstitutional because it (the Act) criminalised conduct that was otherwise a legitimate exercise of a citizen’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 10 (1) (a) of the constitution.

He said the scheme of the Sedition Act makes it an offence for a person to merely act, speak or publish statements with a “seditious tendency” without any requirement on the part of the prosecution to prove that the words were indeed seditious.

hindraf btn 151209 manoharan Manoharan ( right ) said on top of that, it was not an essential ingredient of the offence to prove the intention of the maker of the statements and that statements made would or had incited violence or public disorder.

He said the prosecution also need not prove the truth of the seditious statements.

Manoharan was submitting in the appeal brought by his client, lawyer P Uthayakumar against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court delivered on Jan 26 last year to reject his (Uthayakumar’s) application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional.

“Framed another way, a person who makes a statement which was not seditious and made in good faith and with bona fide intention and was speaking the truth of the matter would still be liable to be convicted for sedition under the Sedition Act,” he said, adding that that position was absurd and unreasonable.

Manoharan said the Act as it stood now did not properly distinguish between the two main categories of persons - those who were genuine in their speech and spoke the truth and those who were not genuine and wished to incite hatred and violence.

‘Laws restricting rights should be read narrowly’

He said it was trite law that the constitutional rights of citizens must be interpreted liberally and laws restricting rights should be read narrowly.

Manoharan said Uthayakumar’s right to speech and expression had been restricted by the Act as evidenced by the prosecution against him.

Uthayakumar, 49, a former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the ‘Police Watch Malaysia’ website, dated Nov 15 2007 addressed to the then-prime minister of Britain, Gordon Brown.

He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the act to be revoked and the prosecution in the proceedings in the Sessions Court be struck out.

The trial of his case has been stayed pending the disposal of this appeal.

Deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badarudin, in her written submission, said the provisions under Article 10 of the federal constitution were not an absolute right.

“Parliament has the power to pass laws to restrict the right of the said freedom,” she said, adding that Uthayakumar was properly charged with an offence under a valid law.

“The Sedition Act is an act which has been legislated by Parliament with the intention of protecting public order and security of the country,” she said.

The panel of judges comprising Justice Sulaiman Daud, Azhar Ma’ah and Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad adjourned the hearing to another date yet to be fixed.

- Bernama