Two Sessions Court judges yesterday meted different rulings on the application of Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, which has been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal last Friday.
 
Section 9(1) of the law stipulates that organisers of a public assembly must provide 10 days notice to the police, while Section 9(5) stipulates that violating Section 9(1) is an offence.
 
In Kuala Lumpur, Sessions judge Azman Mustapha granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal against Badrul Hisham Shaharin, Edy Nor Reduan and Mohamed Bukhairy Sofian. The trio were charged under Section 9(5).
 
But in Ipoh, Sessions judge Rushan Lutfi Mohamed refused to do the same for Mohammad Anuar Zakaria, who was charged under the same law.
 
His lawyer N Surendran had pleaded to the court to take heed of the Court of Appeal ruling but to no avail. The judge said that he would provide the grounds of the ruling on May 16.
 
Section unconstitutional
 
Last Friday, a three-member bench at the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that Section 9(5) was unconstitutional, but had differing views on Section 9(1), thus writing three separate judgments.
 
Justice Mohd Ariff Mohd Yusof and justice Hamid Sultan Abu Bakar viewed Section 9(1) as constitutional, while justice Mah Weng Kwai ruled the section as unconstitutional.
 
Meanwhile for Section 9(5), justice Hamid wrote that the right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution and hence cannot be criminalised.
 
Justice Mah added his voice to the decision, arguing that Section 9(5) makes a mockery of the right to freedom of assembly.
 
According to justice Mah, freedom of assembly outweighs any inconvenience that might be caused by a protest, such as traffic jams.

Judges say PAA's 10-day notice 'unreasonable'