The High Court in Kuala Lumpur today rejected the appeal by five undergraduates, who had been expelled by their universities, against their conviction by a lower court for taking part in an illegal assembly outside the National Mosque on June 8, 2001.

They were found guilty of taking part in a rally opposing the Internal Security Act (ISA) by a magistrate’s court on June 18, 2009, and today judge Su Geok Yiam upheld the conviction, for which the five were fined RM3,900 each or three months’ jail.

Justice Su said she was satisfied with the public prosecutor’s case and dismissed the appeals on grounds that they had no merit.

The five are Nik Norhafizi Nik Ibrahim, 31, Zulkefle Idris, 31, Ahmad Kamal Abdul Hamid, 30, Rafzan Ramli, 34, and Khairul Amal Mahmud, 31, all formerly from local universities.

They were charged under Section 27(5)(a) of the Police Act 1967, which carries a fine of between RM2,000 and RM10,000 each and a jail term not exceeding one year, upon conviction.

“Section 27(5)(a) of the Police Act does not contravene the right to assemble provided for in the Federal Constitution, and it is valid and constitutional,” Justice Su said.

“The law does not prevent members (of the public) from exercising the right to assemble, but merely seeks to control and regulate such organised assemblies.”

anti-isa rally in kuala lumpurSeven undergraduates had initially been charged with taking part in the illegal assembly outside the National Mosque on June 8, 2001, during the peak of the reformasi movement, when then deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was arrested under the ISA.

One of the seven expelled students, Helman Sanuddin, was acquitted, but no reason was given for his release, while another, Wan Sanusi Wan Mohd Noor, has been missing since they were called to enter their defence.

Following the charges filed against them, the seven were expelled by their universities.

In the first stage of the case, all were acquitted by a magistrate’s court in 2005, which found that the prosecution had failed to raise a prima facie in the matter.

Following an appeal by the prosecution, the High Court ordered five out of the seven to enter their defence in 2006, and remitted their case back to the magistrate’s court. Hearing into the case began on March 15, 2007, and the five were found guilty on June 18, 2009.

Permit requirement unconstitutional, argues defence

Although, the judge agreed that the fundamental right of citizens to assemble freely and peacefully is provided for under Article 10(13) of the constitution, the restrictions under the Police Act, she said, were deemed necessary “in the interest of security”.

Justice Su said she was satisfied that the rally was an organised assembly, and that a permit had not been applied for.

“The police did instruct them to disperse but the persons involved disobeyed police orders... there is, therefore, sufficient evidence that they had taken part in an unlawful assembly,” she added.

Nik Norhafizi, Zulkefle, Ahmad Kamal, Rafzan and Khairul Amal were represented by Edmund Bon, with Mohd Hafiz Mohd Yusoff appearing for the prosecution. 

The defence had appealed against their conviction on grounds that the requirement for a permit to assemble peacefully under the Police Act was unconstitutional.

Bon later told reporters that he would consult the clients on whether to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.

“We are unhappy that the court didn’t follow the Federal Court decision to hold the permit requirement in the Police Act as unconstitutional.

“Nevertheless, we will get the (written) judgment and see how far can take it from there,” Bon added.