17 Aug PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V AZMI BIN SHAROM [2015] 6 MLJ 751
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Parties to the Suit:
Plaintiff: Public Prosecutor
Defendant: Azmi bin Sharom
Case Type: Criminal Reference
Relevant Provisions: This case centered on a direct challenge to the Sedition Act 1948 and its relationship with the Federal Constitution, specifically, Article 10(1)(a), Article 10(2)(a), Article 162(1) and Article 4(1)
Overview of the Case:
The Defendant, a law professor, was charged under the Sedition Act for two statements. Before his trial began, he challenged the constitutionality of the Act itself. He argued that the Sedition Act was a pre-Merdeka law, not one passed by the Malaysian Parliament. As a result, he contended that it could not be considered a valid restriction on the fundamental freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. The Defendant’s primary argument was that under Article 10(2), only Parliament has the authority to make laws that curtail this freedom.
Conversely, the Public Prosecutor argued that the Sedition Act was a valid and enforceable law because it was an “existing law” that continued to be in force after Merdeka Day by virtue of Article 162 of the Constitution. The core legal issue for the Federal Court to determine was whether the Sedition Act 1948 was a valid law and, if so, whether its provisions contravened the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
The Federal Court unanimously held that the Sedition Act 1948 is a valid and enforceable law under the Federal Constitution. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the interpretation of Article 162. It found that the Sedition Act was indeed an “existing law” that was intended by the framers of the Constitution to continue to be in force. The court stated that the restrictions imposed by the Act fell within the parameters of what is permissible under Article 10(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the Act does not contravene Article 10.
Furthermore, the Federal Court rejected the argument that only laws passed by Parliament after Merdeka could restrict freedom of speech. The court reasoned that Article 162 provides a separate and distinct basis for the validity of existing laws, placing them on equal footing with laws passed by Parliament under Article 10. This pivotal decision effectively reaffirmed the legal standing of the Sedition Act 1948, allowing the prosecution against the Defendant to proceed.