The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court made no decision in Raja Petra Kamarudin's criminal defamation case on whether it should be heard at the Sessions Court or be returned to the Magistrate's Court where he was originally charged.

Instead Judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat resolved to today to let the High Court decide on the matter.

raja petra criminal defamation charge 251108 The judge said the court agreed that Raja Petra was charged at the Magistrate's Court and following a transfer application by the prosecution, the magistrate agreed to transfer the case.

He also noted that the defence had raised a preliminary objection over the legality of the transfer order.

"The defence also filed a notice of motion at the High Court to suspend proceedings at this court and to (bring a constitutional issue into question)," Mohamad Sekeri said.

"The court finds that the preliminary objection and the notice filed are the same. Hence, this court will not make a decision on this matter and will let the High Court decide on the matters raised by the defence."

Three charges

DPP Anselm Charles Fernandes then told Mohamad Sekeri the High Court has fixed Dec 4 to hear the application. He applied to the Sessions Court to fix a mention date for possible trial dates.

Mohamad Sekeri then fixed Dec 15 for mention. Counsel J Chandra and Amarjeet Singh Sidhu appeared for Raja Petra.

Raja Petra, the editor of the Malaysia Today portal, had on Nov 24, claimed trial to three charges of criminal defamation at the Sessions Court.

raja petra kamaruddin rpk session court kl 241108 02 He was initially charged on July 17 at the Magistrate's Court with three counts of criminal defamation against 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 faces a maximum two-year jail term or a fine or both, if convicted.

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

Counsel Manjeet Singh Dhillon had on Nov 24 - the day the trial was to have started - brought a constitutional issue into question.

He pointed out that it violated Article 8(1) on equality. If Raja Petra's case was heard at the Magistrate's Court, there is a RM10,000 cap on the fine, compared to being heard in the Sessions Court where there is no limit on the fine.

Manjeet submitted that, as the matter involves a constitutional matter, it should be referred to the High Court or Federal Court for a decision.

Matter can be heard

court cases against raja petra kamaruddin rpk 181108 Anselm however argued that the constitutional matter had been decided by the Supreme Court, and that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Anselm also said case laws showed that the constitutional issue on equality had also been decided by the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.

Furthermore, he submitted that under Article 145 (3A), the attorney-general is empowered to determine the court or venue where proceedings shall be instituted or transferred.

Meanwhile, the High Court agreed to postpone the hearing of a civil suit brought by lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah against Raja Petra, as Manjeet is abroad.

Judge Tee Ah Sing fixed Feb 23, as hearing of the inter-parte injunction after meeting the parties in chambers.

Chandra and Amarjeet Singh represented Raja Petra, while Shafee was represented by S Ravindran.

The High Court granted Shafee an ex-parte injunction on Aug 13 against Raja Petra following three articles posted in Malaysia Today, which allegedly defamed the lawyer.

VIDEO | 3 mins