Case Law 2: Public Prosecutor v.

Azmi Bin Sharom

Facts:

Law Professor Dr. Azmi Bin Sharom was charged on September 2, 2014 under Section 4(1)
(b) and alternatively under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act for the remarks he made on
an article entitled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan
told”. The article was published on the website “Malay Mail Online” on August 14, 2014.

The article was about a political crisis in the state of Selangor in Malaysia, in which the state
had planned to remove the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister before the official legislative
assembly took place. Sharom was quoted in the news article as saying that a constitutional
crisis could happen similar to what happened in the state of Perak in 2009 when the state’s
Chief minister was removed from his position by the state’s Sultan.

Issue:

In 2014, Azmi Sharom, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Malaya, was
charged with sedition as a result of comments made by him concerning the 2009 Perak
constitutional crisis that were reported by an online news portal. Sharom then applied for
the question of the constitutionality of the Sedition Act 1948 (the Act) to be referred to the
High Court. Two constitutional questions were subsequently referred to the Federal Court
under s 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, namely:

(a) whether s 4(1) of the Act contravenes Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution and is
therefore void under Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution; and

(b) whether the Act is a valid and enforceable Act under the Federal Constitution.

Held & Decision overview:

The Attorney General of Malaysia as the Public Prosecutor under Article 145(3) of the
Federal Constitution, in exercising my discretion, decided to discontinue the prosecution of
Associate Prof Dr Azmi Sharom for charges under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948. It
was held by the Federal Court that Section 4 of Sedition Act are constitutional. The federal
court held that the Sedition Act 1948 is valid and enforceable by the virtue of Article162 as
unmodified pre-independent laws are still in force after Merdeka Day. The federal court also
explained that the Sedition Act 1948 is consistent with the Federal Constitution as seditious
tendency laid in Section 4(1) (a-f) falls within the ambit of Article 10(2)(a) The court
decision ruled that the Sedition Act is a constitutional contract of the right to freedom of
expression because the Sedition Act has been used as a political weapon to silence those
who criticize the Malaysian government.
Review:

The government previously proposed to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with a
new act known as the National Harmony Act. Peace and stability in the country can be
threatened if the Sedition Act 1948 is repealed because some rights and privileges enshrined
in the constitution can be challenged. This act currently serves to protect several matters
involving royal institutions, the rights and privileges of Bumiputera and freedom of
expression. If this act were abolished our country, it will not be safe and may bring about a
situation where its security is threatened, this is because why this act (Sedition Act) wants
to protect, does not need to be repealed or replaced with a new act, but it can be modified
with the passage of time by making some improvements. if we want to modify this act, we
allow constructive criticism of the government. It is not a mistake as long as the criticism is
not to incite to overthrow the government in an undemocratic way. Besides, I acknowledge
the need for such laws nowadays to deal with the growing issue of racial and religious
incitement, new laws need to be enacted to suit the current dynamic environment in
Malaysia and deal with these challenges effectively.