The preliminary objection made by the prosecution to Padang Serai MP N Surendran’s application to refer the question on the constitutionality of the Sedition Act to the High Court will be decided on Friday afternoon by a sessions court in Kuala Lumpur.

Sessions judge Ahmad Bache said he needs time to decide on this after hearing submissions on the matter today.

DPP Wan Shaharuddin Wan Laden said the Sedition Act is still good law and the lower courts should not lump all cases of constitutionality of this law to the higher court.

Wan Shaharuddin cited the Supreme Court decision in the Mark Koding sedition case and also the Court of Appeal decision against Sri Muda assemblyperson, Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei, who also sought to strike out a sedition charge against him.

“In the case of Mat Shuhaimi ( right ), the appellate court rejected the striking out application and the decision stands to this day.

“With Mark Koding, the Supreme Court also commented that lower court judges should not be lumping constitutional cases to the apex court where it (the subordinate courts) could make a decision itself,” he said.

Based on these cases,  Wan Shaharuddin added, the Sedition Act is still a good law, despite it being a pre-Merdeka law.

Surendran was on Aug 28 charged with uttering a seditious statement relating to Opposition Leader Abwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II case, which was uploaded on YouTube after the press conference Surendran held at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on Aug 9.

He is charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, which carries a maximum of three years' jail or RM5,000 fine or both upon conviction.

Surendran is represented by M Puravalen and Latheefa Koya.

Puravalen submitted that the Sedition Act 1948 is a pre-Merdeka law that severely affects human rights.

Furthermore, he said, the Act is unconstitutional as intention has to be proven.

Puravalen also contrasted the charge against Surendran with  Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail's decision not to charge Perkasa president for his burn the Bible call on grounds that the Malay rights group leader had “no intention”.

As for Mat Shuhaimi's challenge against the Act, the lawyer said this has not ended as Mat Shuhaimi will still be filing for a judicial review.

“Besides this, law professor Azmi Sharom has also mounted a constitutional challenge to the Sedition Act as it is a pre-Merdeka law. Hence we cannot say that the decision on the Sedition Act is final,” Puravalen ( right ) argued.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had promised in 2012 that the Sedition Act would be repealed.

However during the Umno general assembly this year and following a spate of opposition politicians and activists being charged under the Act, Najib made a U-turn announced that the highly criticised law would remain and be fortified.