The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court will hear an application by cartoonist Zunar and two others to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act 1948 on Sept 8 under a new judge.

The application under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 would be heard by Sessions Judge Zainal Salleh, after the previous judge Amernudin Ahmad was transferred.

The cartoonist's lawyer Latheefa Koya explained that Amernuddin had originally fixed the mention of the application for July 24, but this was brought forward to today.

"But what happened was - in between - we got a letter asking us to come back today, saying that the judge has been transferred and we will be fixing a new date before this judge," she told Malaysiakini.

Zunar, whose real name is Zulkiflee Anwar Ulhaque, is facing nine charges under the Sedition Act over his tweets regarding the Federal Court’s decision on then opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial in February last year.

His application is being heard before Justice Zainal together with a separate sedition charge against lawyer N Surendran, and another sedition charge faced by lawyer Eric Paulsen.

Surendran is accused of making a seditious claims that there was a political conspiracy behind the sodomy allegation against Anwar in a Youtube video.

Meanwhile, Paulsen is charged with making seditious tweets claiming that the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) is spreading extremism through its Friday sermons.

Surendran is facing another sedition charge at a separate Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court presided by Sessions Judge Ab Karim Ab Rahman.

For the case before Justice Ab Karim, Surendran is accused of issuing a press statement to Malaysiakini titled ‘Court of Appeal’s fitnah 2 written judgment is flawed, defensive and insupportable’, in relation to the appellate court’s judgment against Anwar.

The trio had filed similar applications under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for their respective four charges, arguing that the Sedition Act is unconstitutional because it does not require the element of intention (mens rea) to be proven in order to secure a conviction.

If allowed, the constitutional matter would be referred to the High Court for a decision, before the Sessions Court continues to hear the charges against the trio.

The fate of their application is hinged upon the court’s decision in the case of Seri Muda assemblyperson Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei.

Shuhaimi is challenging the constitutionality of the Sedition Act on similar grounds as Zunar, Surendran, and Paulsen.

The Court of Appeal had heard the arguments in Shuhaimi’s case, but said on June 1 that it was reserving its judgement for now.

Latheefa, who is also representing Shuhaimi and Surendran, said Shuhaimi intends to exhaust all avenues of appeal.

This could mean that the case could go to the Federal Court if the Court of Appeal ruled against Shuhaimi.