The Court of Appeal in Putrajaya today dismissed an application to declare Section 4 of the PAA as unconstitutional and for an unlawful assembly charge to be struck out.

This was on the application by four student activists to refer a question on Section 4 of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 on assembling at a prohibited area.

Court of Appeal president Md Raus Sharif said the court should not encourage such applications, notably when the trial has proceeded.

“Let the trial proceed and you can have your time (when there is an appeal). Let it be. Hence, we strike out the application,” Justice Md Raus said. The judge, however, made no order on costs.

The other two judges were Justice Zakaria Sam and Justice Prashad Sandosham Abraham.

The activists, Adam Adli Abdul Halim, 28, Muhammad Safwan Anang, 28, Ekhsan Bukharee, 26, and Mohamed Bukhairy Mohamed Sofian, 27, were charged under Section 4(2)(b) of the PAA for taking part in an assembly at a prohibited place, namely a place of worship.

The students, in this case, had gathered at Ar Rahman Mosque in Lembah Pantai before they proceeded to attend the Blackout 505 rally at Padang Merbok.

Justice Md Raus dismissed the application by the four students following an objection made by the prosecution led by DPP Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud.

The prosecutor said this is not an appropriate case to be considered by the appellate court as the notice of motion should be filed under Section 30 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), which outlines the reference of constitutional question from a lower court.

Awang Armadajaya said the application should be made with the Sessions Court, where they were charged, and not in the High Court.

The activists were represented by Eric Paulsen and Melissa Sasidaran.

In his argument, Paulsen cited the case of Karpal Singh on referring a constitutional question to the High Court using its inherent jurisdiction, and not through the Sessions Court.

He said it has been the normal procedure as the lower courts can't decide on constitutional questions.

However, Justice Md Raus said there is already a provision for the Sessions Court, under Section 30 of the CJA.

When the application was dismissed, Paulsen asked whether they could make another application under Section 30, to which the judge replied it was up to the applicants.

Outside the court, Paulsen told reporters that he would seek further instructions on whether to file the application under Section 30.

He also said that the case has been fixed for continued hearing on Feb 27.