THE prosecution against Kedah caretaker menteri besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor has been under the spotlight since he pleaded not guilty to two charges in two Selayang sessions courts yesterday.
Sanusi is charged under Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 for statements made on July 11 that insulted Selangor ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah during a speech in Gombak.
The provision states that any person who does any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency, shall be guilty of an offence.
The term “seditious tendency” is explained by Section 3(1)(a) as a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government.
By Section 3(2)(a), 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.
Another important provision is Section 3(3), which states that for the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against the act, the intention of the person charged at the time he uttered any seditious words shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the words had a seditious tendency.
More than 50 years ago, in the case of PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors (1971), high court judge Raja Azlan Shah (as His Lordship then was) explained the above provisions as follows:
“What the prosecution has to prove, and all that the prosecution has to prove, is that the words complained of, or words equivalent in substance to those words, were spoken by the accused.
“Once that is proved, the accused will be conclusively presumed to have intended the natural consequences of his verbal acts, and it is therefore sufficient if his words have a tendency to produce any of the consequences stated in Section 3(1) of the act.
“It is immaterial whether or not the words complained of could have the effect of producing or did, in fact, produce any of the consequences enumerated in the section.
“It is also immaterial whether the impugned words were true or false.
“And it is not open to the accused to say that he did not intend his words to bear the meaning, which they naturally bear.”
Given the above elucidation by a judicial giant of the country, it is not rocket science why the prosecution against Sanusi was taken.
All that the prosecution needs is that the words having seditious tendencies were spoken by him.
His apology to the Selangor ruler only adds to support the decision.
In a statement, the PAS election director said he had sent a letter to Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah explaining the true meaning of his words, which he said had been taken out of context by Pakatan Harapan and Barisan Nasional.
He would not have said the above if the words complained of were not spoken by him.
Successive governments, including the current one, have vowed to abolish or repeal the act.
However, it is also the avowed main principles and policies of every government to uphold the sovereignty and nobility of the Malay rulers as constitutional monarchs.
Two years ago, in May 2021, a member of Sarawak PKR, Iswardy Morni, was remanded for two days to assist investigations into the statements he made on YouTube allegedly insulting Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah.
He was subsequently charged under Section 4(1)(a) of the act.
Until the act is repealed and a new law is passed, it is understandable that the public prosecutor has fallen back on the act to address issues that could possibly lead to disharmony and disunity. – The Vibes, July 20, 2023
Hafiz Hassan reads The Vibes
