PUTRAJAYA, Jan 22 — The late Karpal Singh could have foreseen that his press statement would result in disaffection to the Sultan of Perak, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Awang Amardajaya Awang Mahmud argued that it was something foreseeable for a reasonable man to know that it would cause disaffection.
He said the sedition charge against Karpal Singh was not defective as facts were included for him to prepare his defence.
Awang Amardajaya also submitted that the Sedition Act 1948 is a valid law following the Federal Court’s recent judgment in the case of Universiti Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharom.
He told the three-member bench chaired by Datuk Wira Mohtaruddin Baki that the Sedition Act was a law to prevent against disruption to public order and the security of the country.
Although the Sedition Act was a pre-Merdeka law, it could be modified through legislative process or by court through judicial interpretations, he said.
The DPP submitted this in the appeal brought by Karpal Singh’s family against the deceased’s conviction, to clear his name.
The Court of Appeal had allowed his widow Gurmit Kuar, who is also the administrator of her late husband’s estate, to act as substitute appellant.
The panel which also comprised Court of Appeal judge Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and High Court judge Kamardin Hashim resumed hearing of the appeal today.
The panel first heard the appeal on Nov 24 last year.
On Feb 21, last year, Karpal Singh was found guilty of questioning the Sultan of Perak’s action to remove Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the menteri besar of Perak in 2009.
He was alleged to have committed the offence at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama on Feb 6, 2009.
On March 11, last year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur fined him RM4,000.
Karpal Singh was the Bukit Gelugor Member of Parliament when he lost his life at 73, in a road accident along the North-South expressway near Gua Tempurung on April 17, 2014. His personal assistant, Michael Cornelius also died in the accident.
Gobind Singh Deo representing Karpal Singh, who is also his father submitted that the statement in question was not seditious.
He said Karpal Singh was merely offering a legal opinion pointing out constitutional provisions and the rights of the then Perak Government.
Justice Mohtaruddin then deferred the court’s decision and said the parties would be notified of the date. — Bernama
