A lawyer representing blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin submitted at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court today that it was unconstitutional for the criminal defamation case to be heard there as it should be dealt with at the Magistrates' Court where he was charged.

raja petra kamaruddin rpk session court kl 241108 02 Manjeet Singh Dhillon, in a preliminary objection before the start of the trial, said the transfer was against Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution regarding equality.

He said the Magistrates’ Court has the jurisdiction to impose a maximum fine of RM10,000 compared to the Sessions Court.

Manjeet said under section 87(1) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948, a magistrate can pass any sentence allowed by law not exceeding five years' jail, a maximum fine of RM10,000 or whipping up to 12 strokes or any permitted combination of these three options.

"By contrast, Section 64 of the Subordinates Courts Act 1948 permits the Sessions Court to pass any sentence other than the death sentence. There is no cap on the maximum fine that the sessions judge could impose unlike the magistrate.

“Hence, with the case being transferred from to the Sessions Court, my client is now exposed to an ‘unequal' potentially disparate and far harsher punishment in fine by the Sessions Court as opposed if the case remains in the Magistrates’ Court," he said.

Manjeet said the question before the court was whether it could impose a higher fine to those facing a similar charge at the Magistrates' Court.

Two options

Following this, the counsel argued that Sessions judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat has two options namely to transfer the case back to the Magistrates’ Court or suspend proceedings under the Courts of Judicature Act and transmit the case to the High Court to consider this constitutional question and also the legality in the prosecution transferring it under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

manjeet singh dillon 240604 Manjeet ( left ) earlier submitted that the magistrate’s order to transfer the case on Aug 15, was null, void and contrary to section 177 as there was no ground to transfer the case based on public interests.

He also said that under section 417, of the Criminal Procedure Code only High Court judges could make the transfer order from the lower courts.

As the case, he said, was before the Magistrates’ Court where Raja Petra was charged it should remain there.

Raja Petra was charged on July 17 with three counts of criminal defamation on Rosmah Mansor, Acting Colonel Aziz Buyong and Colonel Norhayati Hassan through a statutory declaration.

He is alleged to have committed the offences at the High Court Civil 5 at the Jalan Duta court complex at 10.25am on June 18. Raja Petra stands to face a maximum two years' jail or fine or both if convicted.

In his statutory declaration, Raja Petra implicated Rosmah, who is the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Raxak, and the other two in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Not relevant

Meanwhile, DPP Anselm Charles Fernandes in response to Manjeet's submission told the judge that the authorities provided by the counsel was before amendments were made to section 177.

court cases against raja petra kamaruddin rpk 181108 "The amendments were made on Feb 17, 1996 and as such what is submitted by the counsel was not relevant," he said.

"However, we will need to prepare a reply on the constitutional issue brought today by Manjeet as I was only informed of the preliminary objection this morning."

Manjeet informed the court that he was only appointed a counsel for Raja Petra on Thursday and had no time to inform the prosecution over the objection after studying the facts.

Mohamad Sekeri then asked Anselm how much time he would need and the DPP replied until tomorrow morning.

Manjeet also brought to the judge's attention on whether the trial should be allowed to go on as the defence made an application to subpoena Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, the two accused in the Altantuya murder trial.

"Since the two would be called for defence at the Shah Alam High Court, this trial could prove to be subjudice, affect the relevancy of the evidence and also my client's case," he said.

Mohamad Sekeri said it was premature to view the defence application to subpoena the two and the court would only hear the reply by the prosecution tomorrow.