Seri Setia assemblyperson Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad was today discharged from a fresh charge brought against him by the federal government under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012.
Petaling Jaya Sessions Court judge Yasmin Abdul Razak said Nik Nazmi (left) had already been discharged and acquitted on the same charge by the Court of Appeal merely 11 days ago.
Yasmin ordered a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
She said the prosecution should instead appeal the Court of Appeal decision with the Federal Court and not attempt to re-file the case in the Sessions Court.
Nik Nazmi, 32, was charged under Section 9(5) of the PAA for failing to issue a 10-day notice, under Section 9(1) of the same Act, for organising a 'Black 505' rally.
The Selangor deputy speaker was one of the organisers of the rally that took place at the Kelana Jaya Stadium shortly after the 13th general election last year.
The charge was identical to the one he faced in the same sessions court in May last year, following the rally that was held on May 8.
“I have to accept that I am the Sessions Court judge. You have placed me with a daunting task here,” Yasmin told the prosecution team after spending an hour listening to submissions from Nik Nazmi’s lead counsel N Surendran and deputy public prosecutor Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.
Surendran, who stood up to ask for a bar in trial even before a plea could be recorded from Nik Nazmi, said that the act of the prosecution was in contempt of the Court of Appeal’s decision and a clear contravention of Article 7(2) of the federal constitution, which says that a person who has been acquitted or convicted cannot be charged again under the same offence.
‘A trial never took place’
However, Shaharuddin argued that the Court of Appeal had acquitted Nik Nazmi without “hearing evidence regarding the charge” and thus his team were perfectly within their rights to charge Nik Nazmi again.
“Though he was acquitted, a trial never took place,” he argued.
Surendran, in his response, argued that Nik Nazmi cannot be tried under Section 9(5) as the Appellate Court has ruled it to be unconstitutional, and thus the section is null and void law unless the Federal Court overturns the decision.
“How do you charge someone under a law that does not exist as of now?” he said.
On April 25, a three-member bench at the Apellate Court, in acquitting and discharging Nik Nazmi, ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for not complying with the 10-day notice period stipulated under the PAA.
After Yasmin’s judgment, Surendran said that his team will pursue a legal process against attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail for making a “mockery out of the justice system”.
Nik Nazmi, who appeared to be in high spirits, labelled it as another “personal victory” for him.
“This shows that the government is getting desperate,” he said.
Petaling Jaya Sessions Court judge Yasmin Abdul Razak said Nik Nazmi (left) had already been discharged and acquitted on the same charge by the Court of Appeal merely 11 days ago.Yasmin ordered a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
She said the prosecution should instead appeal the Court of Appeal decision with the Federal Court and not attempt to re-file the case in the Sessions Court.
Nik Nazmi, 32, was charged under Section 9(5) of the PAA for failing to issue a 10-day notice, under Section 9(1) of the same Act, for organising a 'Black 505' rally.
The Selangor deputy speaker was one of the organisers of the rally that took place at the Kelana Jaya Stadium shortly after the 13th general election last year.
The charge was identical to the one he faced in the same sessions court in May last year, following the rally that was held on May 8.
“I have to accept that I am the Sessions Court judge. You have placed me with a daunting task here,” Yasmin told the prosecution team after spending an hour listening to submissions from Nik Nazmi’s lead counsel N Surendran and deputy public prosecutor Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.
Surendran, who stood up to ask for a bar in trial even before a plea could be recorded from Nik Nazmi, said that the act of the prosecution was in contempt of the Court of Appeal’s decision and a clear contravention of Article 7(2) of the federal constitution, which says that a person who has been acquitted or convicted cannot be charged again under the same offence.
‘A trial never took place’
However, Shaharuddin argued that the Court of Appeal had acquitted Nik Nazmi without “hearing evidence regarding the charge” and thus his team were perfectly within their rights to charge Nik Nazmi again.
“Though he was acquitted, a trial never took place,” he argued.
Surendran, in his response, argued that Nik Nazmi cannot be tried under Section 9(5) as the Appellate Court has ruled it to be unconstitutional, and thus the section is null and void law unless the Federal Court overturns the decision.
“How do you charge someone under a law that does not exist as of now?” he said.
On April 25, a three-member bench at the Apellate Court, in acquitting and discharging Nik Nazmi, ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for not complying with the 10-day notice period stipulated under the PAA.
After Yasmin’s judgment, Surendran said that his team will pursue a legal process against attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail for making a “mockery out of the justice system”.
Nik Nazmi, who appeared to be in high spirits, labelled it as another “personal victory” for him.
“This shows that the government is getting desperate,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.