The apex court today reserved its judgment on the constitutionality on the Sedition Act 1948 after hearing submissions from the government and lawyers for law lecturer Azmi Sharom.

 

Counsel for both sides argued on whether the colonial-era law was still valid since it was enacted by a legislative council, whereas Article 10(4) of the federal constitution says only Parliament can enact laws that limit the freedom of expression.

 

The date for judgment has yet to be fixed with the outcome affecting many pending investigations and charges under the Sedition Act done by police recently.

 

This year alone,  at least 20 people have been investigated or arrested under the law, according to a  tally  by Amnesty International’s Malaysia chapter. A total of 29 persons were probed for sedition last year.

 

Today’s hearing was before a five-member panel chaired by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria with Justice Raus Sharif, Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Justice Abdull Hamid Embong and Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar.

 

The case originated from the Kuala Lumpur High Court where Azmi was charged under the Sedition Act over comments he allegedly made over a news report concerning the Selangor menteri besar crisis last year.

The High Court agreed on Nov 5 to refer to the Federal Court on two issues:

  • whether Section 4(1) of the law contravenes Article 10(2) of the federal constitution; and

 

  • whether the law itself is valid under the constitution.
    • Alleged 'stamp of approval'

    Representing the government, Deputy Solicitor-General Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah argued that the word ‘Parliament’ in Article 10(4) should be interpreted broadly to include the legislative council as Parliament did not exist at the time and legislative functions were done by the council.

     

    There were also transitional clauses in the federal constitution to enable laws to remain in force after Merdeka Day on Aug 31, 1957, he pointed out.

     

    In addition, he said Parliament had in effect given the Sedition Act its “stamp of approval” when it amended the federal constitution in 1971.

     

    The amendment removes immunity from the Sedition Act from the proceedings of Parliament and of the state legislative assemblies.

     

    “Although not literally enacted by Parliament, the Sedition Act 1948 has received a stamp of constitutional approval by Parliament,” he told the court.

     

    Citing several precedents, Azmi Sharom’s lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar ( right ) and Gobind Singh Deo maintained that only Parliament has the power to restrict the freedom of expression and therefore pre-colonial laws need to be brought in line with the post-Merdeka constitution within two years in order to remain valid.

     

    They also argued that based on a precedent set by the Indian Supreme Court in 1951, the subsequent amendments that Abdul Majid mentioned do not mean that the Sedition Act is valid.