Fair trial in sedition cases a misnomer, say lawyers

By admin-s On Sep 26, 2014

(TMI) – For sedition, the act alone is sufficient and intention is irrelevant

Sedition law creates an uneven playing field as the courts’ narrow interpretation of the law almost always favoured the prosecution, lawyers say.

They expressed alarm by the lower standard of proof required in sedition cases, and over judges accepting submissions by the prosecution before imposing jail terms, even on first offenders.

As such, the lawyers told The Malaysian Insider that it was imperative that judges interpret federal laws like the Sedition Act with the Federal Constitution, in particular Article 10, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

They noted that an opportunity has been opened following constitutional challenges to the colonial-era law mounted by three people charged with sedition.

Law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom, Padang Serai MP N. Surendran, and Sri Muda assemblyman Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei have challenged the constitutionality of the Sedition Act, claiming it violates their right to free speech.

Lawyer Balwant Singh Sidhu said unlike other criminal offences, in which the prosecution must show the act and intention to prove its case, the rule did not apply in sedition cases.

“For sedition, the act alone is sufficient and intention is irrelevant,” he said, adding that prosecutors need not prove there was incitement, or harm caused to a third party.

He said prosecutors only need to show that the accused made statement or remarks with seditious tendency.

Balwant said in the long list of sedition trials in this country, especially after 1970, only lawyer Datuk Param Cumaraswamy was acquitted.