Tian Chua fails to strike out sedition charge, again

The sedition charge against Batu Member of Parliament Tian Chua over his alleged statement on the Lahad Datu intrusion, stands.

This is because the 50-year-old lost his appeal today to strike out the charge.    

Court of Appeal president Md Raus Sharif, chairing a three-member panel unanimously dismissed his appeal after hearing arguments from his counsel, Amer Hamzah Arshad, and deputy public prosecutor Yusaini Amer Abdul Karim.

Tian Chua (right), whose real name is Chua Tian Chang, was appealing against a High Court decision on Sept 26, this year which had disallowed his application to strike out the sedition charge.

The other two judges presiding on the panel were Court of Appeal judges Abdul Malik Ishak and Lim Yee Lan.

Tian Chua is facing a charge at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur, of allegedly making statements that the intrusion in Lahad Datu was a planned conspiracy by Umno to divert attention and frighten the people.

He is alleged to have committed the offence at Fraser Business Park in Jalan Metro Pudu, off Jalan Yew, Kuala Lumpur about 11am on March 1, this year. He pleaded not guilty to the charge on March 14.

Tian Chua was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and punishable under Section 4(1) of the same Act which carries a fine of RM5,000 or three years’ jail or both for a first-time offence, and five years’ jail for a subsequent offence if found guilty.

On April 12, he filed the application to have his sedition charge struck out, alleging that the charge was unlawful, malicious or with mala fide, politically motivated and an abuse of the court process.

In today’s proceedings, Amer Hamzah argued that there had been a selective prosecution against Tian Chua as he was a member of an opposition political party. Tian Chua is Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice-president. 

Yusaini Amer, however, said it was the attorney-general’s discretion to decide to charge a person based on evidence.

Outside the court, Amer Hamzah said they would consider whether or not to appeal to the Federal Court.

- Bernama