Apex Court remits activist's case to sessions court

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today refused to determine the constitutionality of a section in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 in a case involving an activist charged with posting an edited image of the Prime Minister.
Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin who chaired the five-man bench found that the prosecution which made the application had not followed the proper procedure when bringing the case before the Apex Court.
"There is non-compliance with the Courts of Judicature Act. We (the panel) direct the case to be remitted back to the Sessions Court," he said, adding that the court also set aside the High Court order to refer the questions of law on the constitutionality of Section 233(1)(a) of the act to the apex court.
Justice Zulkefli who sat with Federal Court judges Tan Sri Azahar Mohamed, Tan Sri Zaharah Ibrahim, Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi and Datuk Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham set Nov 8 for the case of Mohd Fahmi Reza Mohd Zahrin, 40, who is also a graphic designer to be mentioned at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Mohd Fahmi Reza was charged on June 6, 2016, at the Sessions Court with committing the offence via his Instagram account 'kuasasiswa' on Jan 31, 2016.
The link was allegedly traced to No. 35, Jalan BP 10/10, Bandar Bukit Puchong 2, Puchong, Selangor at 6pm on Feb 1, 2016.
He was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 which provides for a maximum fine of RM50,000 or not more than one-year imprisonment or both, upon conviction.
His lawyer Syahredzan Johan filed an application to the High Court to strike out the charge on grounds that Section 233(1)(a) was unconstitutional, to which the prosecution raised an objection, which was dismissed by the high court on Jan 18 this year.
The prosecution filed an application to refer the constitutional issues on the section to the federal court and subsequently the high court referred the case to the apex court.
At today's proceeding, Zulkefli questioned the parties whether the application to refer the constitutionality of the section was properly brought before the court.
Deputy public prosecutor Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud replied that the application should have been made to the Sessions Court first and not directly to the High Court.
"We have to refer this matter (on the constitutionality of the section) to the Federal Court. It was not our choice. It is a special case reference, but our stand is the application should have been made at the Sessions Court first," he said. — Bernama