Charging Seri Setia assemblyperson Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad with the same offence he was acquitted of 12 days ago is improper in law and a waste of public resources, Bar Council president Christopher Leong said today.

Nik Nazmi, 32, was charged under Section 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) for failing to issue a 10-day notice to the police for the 'Black 505' rally, held in the wake of the last year’s general election.

He was acquitted of the offence by the Court of Appeal on April 25 in a landmark decision, and acquitted again by the sessions court yesterday, after he was recharged.

Leong ( left ) said a person cannot be charged with the same offence when he has already been acquitted by a court of law. This is known as “double jeopardy”.

“It is improper in law to recharge him for the same offence. It’s a waste of public resources,” he told Malaysiakini .

This, Leong said, is particularly so when Section 9(5), which accords the punishment, has been held to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal.

“The prosecution may seek to appeal against the acquittal, if such avenue is available, but it should not re-charge the person,” he said.

Yesterday, the sessions court in Petaling Jaya  granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal after the prosecution recharged Nik Nazmi, who is also the Selangor legislative assembly deputy speaker.

Sessions judge Yasmin Abdul Razak said the prosecution should instead appeal the Court of Appeal decision before the Federal Court - the country’s highest court - and not attempt to refile the case in the sessions court.

AG should respect court judgment

Meanwhile, criminal lawyer Joshua Tay said the recharging of Nik Nazmi had put a bad light on Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.

“The AG should respect the Court of Appeal judgment,” Tay said.

He said he has not seen a person being charged twice under the same offence before, as in Nik Nazmi’s case. This is giving the prosecution a bite of the cherry twice, he said.

Tay recalled the case of suspected terrorist Yazid Sufaa, who was acquitted by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, after which the prosecution pressed another charge under a different section of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.

“It is not like this case, where the same charge was read again,” he lamented.

Tay stressed that the Court of Appeal had already declared Section 9(5) unconstitutional.

Therefore, he wondered if Nik Nazmi was charged again and found guilty, how would the court impose a punishment on a law that has been declared null and void.