[2015] 8 CLJ PP v. Azmi Sharom A PP v. AZMI SHAROM B FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA ARIFIN ZAKARIA CJ RAUS SHARIF PCA ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDIN CJ (MALAYA) ABDULL HAMID EMBONG FCJ SURIYADI HALIM OMAR FCJ [CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO: 06-5-12-2014(W)] 6 OCTOBER 2015 C D E F G H I 921 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitution – Pre-Merdeka law – Whether Sedition Act 1948 (‘Act’) valid and enforceable under Federal Constitution (‘Constitution’) – Whether Act comes within ambit of art. 10(2) of Constitution – Whether term “Parliament may by law” in art. 10(2) should be read restrictively or harmoniously with other provisions – Whether intention of framers of Constitution to provide continuance of all existing laws to bring it into accord with Constitution – Whether Act continues to be valid and enforceable post Merdeka Day – Federal Constitution, art. 162 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation – Validity of impugned legislation – Whether s. 4(1) of Sedition Act 1948 (‘Act’) contravened art. 10(2) of Federal Constitution (‘Constitution’) – Fundamental liberties – Freedom of speech – Parliament given right to impose restrictions deemed necessary in the interest of security of Federation – Whether restrictions must fall within parameters set out by art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution – Application of ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionality’ tests – Whether for court to determine restrictions imposed reasonable or otherwise – Whether a matter strictly within discretion of Legislature – Section 4(1) of Act directed to any act, word or publication having seditious tendencies – Whether restrictions imposed by s. 4(1) of Act too remote or not sufficiently connected to subjects enumerated in art. 10(2)(a) of Constitution The defendant was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Sessions Court for an offence under s. 4(1)(b) and alternatively under s. 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 (‘the Act’). The charges relate to two seditious statements made by the defendant as reported by the Malay Mail online on 14 August 2014 which read ‘You don’t want a repeat of that, where a secret meeting took place ...’ and ‘I think what happened in Perak was legally wrong. The best thing to do is do it as legally and transparently as possible.’ The defendant claimed trial to the charges. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendant applied to the Sessions Court to refer the question of the constitutionality of the Act to the High Court. On 5 November 2014, pursuant to s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the High Court, by way of a special case, referred the following questions to this court: (i) whether s. 4(1) of the Act contravened art. 10(2) of the Federal