Can activists be re-charged under PAA?
Ram AnandPublished: May 9, 2014 5:13 AM | Updated: May 9, 2014 8:16 AM
The Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur will decide on May 14 whether three activists can be re-charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) despite being previously discharged by another Sessions Court, also in Kuala Lumpur.
The Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur will decide on May 14 whether three activists can be re-charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) despite being previously discharged by another Sessions Court, also in Kuala Lumpur.
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin, and two other members, Mohamed Bukhairy and Edy Nor Reduan were charged with violating Section 9 (1) of the PAA, punishable under Section 9 (5) in Jan 29 this year.
But the Sessions Court on Apr 28 discharged the three following a Court of Appeal ruling on Apr 25 that section 9(5) of the PAA is unconstitutional.
However, the attorney-general wanted to re-charge them for the same offence today, on the grounds that the Court of Appeal judgement is not a “finality” as an appeal has been lodged with the Federal Court.
But, the three activists’ lead counsel Gobind Singh Deo argued that the lower court had no jurisdiction to record a plea from the three as the Appeal Court had decided that no offence had been committed.
“This court does not have jurisdiction to even record a plea from them. What if they plead guilty under a law that is unconstitutional?” he asked in his submissions before the charge could even be read out to the three.
In return, Deputy Public Prosecutor Suhaimi Ibrahim requested that the court postpone the case until the Federal Court hears the government’s appeal against the PAA being declared unconstitutional.
The trio were accused of not submitting a 10-day notice prior to organising a Turun rally against price hikes on the eve of the New Year last year, which is punishable under Section 9 (5) of the PAA.
The Court of Appeal had previously ruled in a similar charge against PKR leader Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad that one cannot be punished by law for not adhering to the 10-day notice under PAA.
That did not stop the Seri Setia assemblyperson from being re-charged with the same offences, however, he was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.
Meanwhile, today, Judge Ahmad Bache said that he needed time to deliberate on the matter, and will deliver a decision on Wednesday.
Suhaimi also said that if the Court of Appeal ruling is taken as cancelling off the particular section of the PAA, that could mean that people would start "having assemblies without any regulations."
Fellow defence counsel Eric Paulsen refuted the prosecution's arguments, saying that if all orders would only be regarded as final should the Federal Court decide, "there would be chaos".
"I am afraid the Attorney-General’s (AG) Chambers is leading the court into a grave error," he said.
Gobind earlier criticised the AG Chambers' conduct, stating the re-charge was a "clear abuse of process" tantamount to "scandalising the court."
"The court must take a stand and send a strong message to the AG that what he is doing is wrong," he added.
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) leader Badrul Hisham Shaharin, and two other members, Mohamed Bukhairy and Edy Nor Reduan were charged with violating Section 9 (1) of the PAA, punishable under Section 9 (5) in Jan 29 this year.But the Sessions Court on Apr 28 discharged the three following a Court of Appeal ruling on Apr 25 that section 9(5) of the PAA is unconstitutional.
However, the attorney-general wanted to re-charge them for the same offence today, on the grounds that the Court of Appeal judgement is not a “finality” as an appeal has been lodged with the Federal Court.
But, the three activists’ lead counsel Gobind Singh Deo argued that the lower court had no jurisdiction to record a plea from the three as the Appeal Court had decided that no offence had been committed.
“This court does not have jurisdiction to even record a plea from them. What if they plead guilty under a law that is unconstitutional?” he asked in his submissions before the charge could even be read out to the three.
In return, Deputy Public Prosecutor Suhaimi Ibrahim requested that the court postpone the case until the Federal Court hears the government’s appeal against the PAA being declared unconstitutional.
The trio were accused of not submitting a 10-day notice prior to organising a Turun rally against price hikes on the eve of the New Year last year, which is punishable under Section 9 (5) of the PAA.
The Court of Appeal had previously ruled in a similar charge against PKR leader Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad that one cannot be punished by law for not adhering to the 10-day notice under PAA.
That did not stop the Seri Setia assemblyperson from being re-charged with the same offences, however, he was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court.
Meanwhile, today, Judge Ahmad Bache said that he needed time to deliberate on the matter, and will deliver a decision on Wednesday.
Suhaimi also said that if the Court of Appeal ruling is taken as cancelling off the particular section of the PAA, that could mean that people would start "having assemblies without any regulations."
Fellow defence counsel Eric Paulsen refuted the prosecution's arguments, saying that if all orders would only be regarded as final should the Federal Court decide, "there would be chaos".
"I am afraid the Attorney-General’s (AG) Chambers is leading the court into a grave error," he said.
Gobind earlier criticised the AG Chambers' conduct, stating the re-charge was a "clear abuse of process" tantamount to "scandalising the court."
"The court must take a stand and send a strong message to the AG that what he is doing is wrong," he added.
View Comments0