2 activists seek apex court decision on AG’s power to prosecute

 

S Sivakumar and M Rajasegaran must convince the court that novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance are being raised for the first time.

PUTRAJAYA: Two Hindu activists have taken to the Federal Court to determine if the attorney-general has unfettered discretion in deciding whether to prosecute someone suspected of a crime.

S Sivakumar and M Rajasegaran have sought the Federal Court’s decision on two questions of law on the AG’s power as the public prosecutor.

The action by the two men comes after the Court of Appeal rejected their application for leave to file a judicial review of the AG’s decision against prosecuting two preachers, Zamri Vinoth and Firdaus Wong, for allegedly insulting non-Islamic faiths.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Dec 1 that the decision could not be challenged, and that Sivakumar and Rajasegaran had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for leave in a judicial review.

They must now convince the apex court that novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance are being raised for the first time, in line with Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act.

Their lawyer, T Gunaseelan, said two questions of law were filed with the court registry last week and served on the attorney-general’s chambers.

“Essentially, they are asking the court whether the AG has unfettered discretion not to frame charges against suspects of a crime under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution,” Gunaseelan told FMT.

The Federal Court registry has yet to fix a hearing date.

Sivakumar and Rajasegaran lodged police reports against Zamri and Firdaus between 2018 and 2019 for allegedly insulting Hindus. They said the AG failed to file charges although numerous police reports were lodged against the preachers. - FMT