PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal here yesterday ordered lawyer Karpal Singh to enter defence on a charge of uttering seditious words against Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak during a press conference in 2009.
A three-man panel chaired by Federal Court judge Datuk Ahmad Ma’arop unanimously allowed the prosecution’s appeal to set aside the High Court’s decision to acquit and discharge the DAP national chairman on the sedition charge at the end of the prosecution’s case without ordering him to make his defence.
Justice Ahmad ruled that the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against him.
The panel, also comprising Court of Appeal judges Datuk Clement Allan Skinner and Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, fixed Feb 9 for mention of Karpal’s case at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
The judge, in his written judgment which he took more than two hours to read out, said what Karpal uttered at the press conference was dissatisfaction and discontent with the Sultan of Perak.
Justice Ahmad said Karpal Singh’s statement had affected the esteem of the Sultan and also resulted in a clash of civilisation between the relationship of the people and its ruler.
Karpal Singh was acquitted by the High Court on June 11 2010 on the charge of uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama here between noon and 12.30pm on Feb 6 2009.
He was alleged to have said that the removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as menteri besar of Perak by the sultan could be questioned in a court of law.
The charge under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act carries a maximum RM5,000 fine or three years’ jail, or both if convicted.
In his judgment, Justice Ahmad said the panel did not accept Karpal Singh’s submission that Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948, which makes questioning the rights and privilege of rulers an offence, was against the Federal Constitution.
At the hearing of the appeal in July last year, Karpal applied to the court to remove Section 3 (1)(f) and declare that provision unconstitutional because he said Article 160 of the Federal Constitution allowed litigants to take heads of state to court by way of judicial review as they were included in the definition of ‘public authority’.
After hearing submissions from the parties in the appeal for two days in July last year, the panel reserved its decision.
Justice Ahmad, in his judgment, said the Sultan’s power cannot be subject to judicial review.
He said Karpal Singh’s statement at the press conference that “the Sultan did not respect the law and that the ruler had acted ultra vires with regards to Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution, had created hatred.
Article 16 (6) concerns the sultan’s power to appoint the menteri besar.
The judge said the prosecution only had to prove that what was stated had resulted in unrest, adding that there was no necessity to show intention in sedition.
Justice Ahmad said what Karpal Singh uttered did not constitute to freedom of speech, adding that as a respected senior lawyer and a Member of Parliament, he (Karpal Singh) should know the boundaries of freedom of speech.
He also noted that there were 103 police reports made against Karpal Singh following his (Karpal Singh’s) remarks.
Among those present in the packed court were Karpal Singh’s family members, DAP members including Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang, former DAP leader Dr Chen Man Hin, Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng, Petaling Jaya MP Tony Pua and Bukit Bintang MP Fong Po Kuan.
Representing Karpal Singh were his sons Jagdeep Singh Deo, Gobind Singh Deo, Ramkarpal Singh and daughter Sangeet Kaur, lawyers R.S.N Rayer, Ramesh Sivakumar and Teoh Lib Peng. Deputy public prosecutors Noorin Badaruddin and Najib Zakaria represented the prosecution.
Lawyer Rajpal Singh held a watching brief for the Bar Council.
Outside the court, Karpal Singh said he would appeal the decision to the Federal Court although he said there was a court authority stating that if defence was called, it was not appealable because it was not a final order.
He said there was discrimination in this matter because had the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit him, the prosecution had the right to appeal to the Federal Court as the court of appeal’s decision would be considered a final order.
He said whether an accused not having the right to appeal to the Federal Court once defence was called, was unconstitutional, that could be the subject matter of the appeal.
“I accept the decision for the moment. We will get on to the Federal Court and see what happens there,” he said. — Bernama