KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 25 — The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is mounting a “second attempt” to get the Federal Court to decide whether a key part of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 is constitutional, lawyer Hassan Karim said today.
The key element in question relates to the requirement under Section 9(1) of the PAA for rally organisers to give a 10-day notice, while Section 9(5) of the law criminalises non-compliance by imposing a maximum RM10,000 fine.
Hassan’s client, Johor PKR executive secretary R. Yuneswaran, was acquitted of a charge under Section 9(1) of the PAA by a lower court this August 24, but the prosecution has appealed. The Court of Appeal was due to hear it today.
The appeal hearing was postponed after the prosecution applied at the Court of Appeal to refer the constitutionality of the PAA clause to the Federal Court, he said.
“They want to bring the constitutional issue regarding the PAA’s Sections 9(1) and (5) to be decided by the Federal Court,” the Johor PKR vice-chairman told Malay Mail Online today.
The Court of Appeal has fixed October 10 to hear the prosecution’s application before determining whether the constitutional question must be sent to the Federal Court, he said.
But Hassan said he is objecting to the AGC’s bid in his client’s case, pointing out that it would be “redundant” as the government lawyers were already seeking the Federal Court’s decision in a separate case on whether the PAA clause was in line with the Federal Constitution.
“But we oppose the application because at this juncture, there is a pending appeal at the Federal Court level,” he said, referring to PKR Youth chief Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad’s case where the country’s highest court had yet to deliver any decision.
In April, the Court of Appeal decided on Nik Nazmi’s constitutional challenge, ruling that Section 9(1) of the PAA was acceptable while declaring Section 9(5) of the same law as unconstitutional.
Hassan asked why there was a need for the AGC to file “two applications” — in different cases — on the “same matter” of the PAA clause’s constitutionality.
He also pointed out that the Johor Baru High Court’s had on August 24 this year dismissed the prosecution’s first bid to bring the same constitutional issue to the Federal Court, but said the latter did not appeal against this decision then.
Today, the prosecution was represented by DPP Manoj Kurup and DPP Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, while the Court of Appeal panel were composed of Justices Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif, Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh, he said.
Nik Nazmi’s case
When contacted, Nik Nazmi’s lawyer Latheefa Koya confirmed that the AGC had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision in her client’s case, but added that no hearing date for the appeal at the Federal Court had been fixed.
Latheefa said that Nik Nazmi’s legal team had already raised an objection against the AGC’s appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal should be the final court to decide on the constitutionality of the PAA court.
She cited the Federal Court case of Siow Chung Peng that ruled that a case which originated from the Sessions Court should end at the Court of Appeal.
A string of PAA cases hinge on the outcome in Nik Nazmi’s case, with the Court of Appeal’s April 25 decision already considered a landmark ruling on the law that came into force just days before the Bersih 3.0 mass rally.
