MAY 4 — The Malaysian Bar has filed for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Federal Territories Pardons Board (FTPB) to halve former prime minster Najib Razak’s jail sentence and reduce the fine in his SRC International conviction.
In the application, the Bar seeks a declaration that the FTPB’s collective decision was unlawful, unconstitutional and void. The court is the rightful constitutional body to decide whether the decision was unlawful, unconstitutional and void.
Is the challenge an outright challenge to the King’s powers, and therefore seditious?
Should the Malaysian Bar face a charge under paragraph (c) of Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) like Bersatu information committee member Badrul Hisham Shaharin, better known as Chegubard, and blogger Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris, or Papagomo?
He asks what action the government intends to take against the body of lawyers, following recent criminal charges for sedition brought against bloggers Chegubard and Papagomo over comments they made concerning the king.
Paragraph (c) is the offence of printing, publishing, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or reproducing any seditious publication.
By Section 2 of the Act, seditious publication means any publication having a seditious tendency.
By Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, seditious tendency includes bringing into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government.
By Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, however, “an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency to show that any
Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”.
Arguably then, the legal challenge by the Malaysian Bar is not seditious “by reason only that has a tendency to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures”.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
