KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 14 — The policeman who lodged the report that led to law lecturer Azmi Sharom’s sedition trial agreed in court today that it was not wrong for an individual to express an opinion about court rulings.
During cross-examination by Azmi’s lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, the policeman, Asst Supt Tay Chew Thwa, said he agreed with the assertion that a person who disagrees with a court judgment is “entitled to give his views” on it.
The 46-year-old Tay, who is attached to the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters' D9 Special Investigation Division, also agreed when Gobind asked: "This is more so when the person making the comment is an academic, in particular a professor of law”.
“Agree, Yang Arif,” he told the court.
Earlier, Tay said he was the officer on duty for the D9 division on August 15, 2014, where he was responsible for monitoring cases that "attract attention" such as murder cases and armed robbery cases.
Tay said he had read the August 14, 2014 article from news portal Malay Mail Online's website from the computer in his office, highlighting a quote by Azmi which he said attracted his attention.
"To me, this disputes the court's decision that had determined the appointment of the Perak Mentri Besar," said Tay, who is the prosecution's first witness, referring to Azmi reportedly saying that a repeat of the Perak crisis where a secret meeting took place would not be wanted.
He explained to the court that he had lodged a police report against Azmi's words as he felt that a statement by a law professor would be "easily believed" by the public.
Tay also said he believed that Azmi's remarks may "incite the public to not follow court decisions".
Tay said this when replying to prosecutor Suhaimi Ibrahim's question on why he had lodged the report despite agreeing that court rulings can be scrutinised and commented on.
Zurairi Abd Rahman, the Malay Mail Online reporter who wrote the 2014 report, later testified that he had contacted Azmi to get his views as a legal and constitutional expert on the Selangor Mentri Besar crisis then and that the discussion had touched on the Perak Mentri Besar crisis.
When asked about Azmi's allegedly seditious remark that he thought what happened in Perak was legally wrong and it was best for things to be done legally and transparently, Zurairi agreed that the academic was giving his point of view.
"I don't see anything wrong with that call nor for him making that call," he said regarding Azmi's call for transparency.
Zurairi agreed that many court rulings have been criticised, also agreeing with Gobind that the Chief Justice of Malaysia had said that the judiciary welcomes criticism of judgments.
He agreed that a law professor would come up with opinions or suggestions after looking at court decisions on factual situations that present a legal problem.
Zurairi also agreed that Azmi was not the one who had published the article and that the latter was not shown a copy before it was published.
Justin Ong Hian Pang, the assistant news editor tasked with checking grammar and language use for articles on Malay Mail Online, later told the court that Azmi's remarks were not edited at all because they were quotes.
The hearing before Sessions Court judge Amernudin Ahmad resumes this afternoon.
Azmi was charged on September 2, 2014, under Section 4(1)(b) and alternatively under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for a remark he made in an article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told”, with a conviction under either charge punishable by a maximum RM5,000 fine, a maximum three-year jail term or both.
