Malaysia
Bersatu’s Razali Idris convicted of sedition, fined RM2,000 by Sessions Court
Bersatu’s Kijal assemblyman Razali Idris was fined RM2,000 over seditious remarks made during a 2023 by-election campaign. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 5 — A Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur has fined a Bersatu leader RM2,000 after finding him guilty of making seditious remarks during a by-election campaign three years ago.

According to reporting by Free Malaysia Today (FMT), judge Norma Ismail convicted Datuk Razali Idris after ruling that he had failed to raise reasonable doubt in his defence. 

She ordered that Razali serve a three-month jail term if he failed to pay the fine.

The Kijal assemblyman and member of the Terengganu State Executive Council had been charged with one count of sedition over comments made at a by-election event at Padang Astaka Chukai in Kemaman, Terengganu, on November 10, 2023. 

In his remarks, he questioned what he described as differing treatment between Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman following their respective court cases.

Ahmad Zahid had earlier been granted a conditional discharge on 47 corruption charges, while Syed Saddiq was acquitted last year of charges of criminal breach of trust and money laundering.

FMT also reported Razali’s lawyer, Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud, as urging the court during mitigation to impose only a fine. 

He argued that the video clip showing Razali’s remarks had been deleted shortly after it was posted online.

“The remarks did not cause any ‘adverse’ impact to the public or anyone who heard it,” Awang Armadajaya told the court, as reported by the media organisation.

He also said that Razali would be disqualified as an assemblyman if the court imposed a fine of more than RM2,000 or a jail sentence exceeding one year.

The prosecution, however, took a tougher view. 

Deputy public prosecutor Izzat Amir Idham argued that a custodial sentence was warranted, telling the court that a fine alone would be “insufficient” given the nature of the offence.

 

Related Articles

 

You May Also Like