The hearing of an application for a revision order over the discharge of three Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders from a sedition charge has been postponed to Monday by the Shah Alam High Court.

Judicial commissioner Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim granted the adjournment when the lawyers acting for P Uthayakumar, P Waythamoorthy and VS Ganabatirau asked for more time to argue whether the High Court has revisionary powers over a discharge not amounting to an acquittal in a lower court.

The trio were charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act over allegedly seditious remarks made during a speech at a restaurant in Batang Berjuntai on Nov 16.

However, Sessions Court judge Zunaidah Mohd Idris on Nov 26 had ruled that the charge was defective as the original speech in Tamil was not attached to the charge sheet.

The prosecution, led by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail and head of prosecution in the AG’s Chambers Yusof Zainal Abiden, subsequently filed for a revision order of the ruling.

Counsel A Srimugan said it was incorrect for Abdul Gani to file for a revision against the discharge.

“It is not like the AG is beyond any (other) options. (He) can frame a fresh charge against the three. Why is there an exceptional circumstance here? Isn’t this an abuse of process?” he argued this morning.

The application for a revision order was initially heard on Wednesday but was adjourned when Gobind Singh Deo, who appeared for three lawyers, refused to proceed because he had not received instructions from his clients.

At the time, Uthayakumar, Ganabatirau and another lawyer M Manoharan were involved with bail applications for 31 Hindraf supporters who were being charged with attempted murder and taking part in an illegal assembly.

‘More time required’

Manoharan today argued that he needs more time to prepare his arguments and asked for an adjournment pending a reply from the chief justice as to whether a Court of Appeal judge could hear this case.

“This is because Abang Iskandar has previously worked as Federal Counsel or a Deputy Public Prosecutor directly under Abdul Gani. The judicial commissioner must recuse himself,” he said.

However, Abang Iskandar would not recuse himself despite admitting that he did serve under the AG several years ago.

“Just because I once served the AG does not mean I cannot dispense justice properly,” he told the packed courtroom.

Other lawyers appearing for the respondents include A Sivanesan, GK Ganesan, Umisalamah Abd Latiff, Teng Chang Khim and S Bala.

Amer Hamzah Arshad held a watching brief for the Bar Council.