University students can now take part in politics, and institutions of higher learning cannot take action against them unless Monday's landmark Court of Appeal decision is overturned.
Even if the Federal Court overturns Monday's decision, action cannot be taken against them between now and until the decision of the country's highest court is made, former United Nations special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy said today.
"At present, the Court of Appeal decision is good law. Students can participate in politics without fear of action being taken against them by their universities," Param said.
"The prohibition on students' involvement in politics is not good law now. Unless the Federal Court overturns Monday's decision, what we have today still stands.
"Between now and the appeal period, students have the right to engage in politics without fear. This is because the law, if the Federal Court overturns the Appeal Court decision, cannot be applied retrospectively. That is very clear," the veteran lawyer added.
As far as the law is concerned, said Param, a former Bar Council president, Section 15(5) (a) is no longer in existence following the court ruling, and the statement yesterday by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz was clearly wrong.
In a landmark 2-1 majority decision on Monday, the Court of Appeal judges Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Linton Albert allowed four former Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia students appeal to declare Section 15 (5) (a) as unconstitutional.
Section 15(5) (a) states: No student of the University and no organisation, body or group of students of the University which is established by, under or in accordance with the Constitution, shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to -
(a) any political party, whether in or outside Malaysia;
Concurring with Param, Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights campaigner Edmund Bon said as far as the law was concerned, that section of the UUCA had become non-existent following Monday's decision.
No greenlight for rallies or other offences
However, Bon warned that even though students were now free to be involved in politics, it did not entirely mean they could participate in rallies as there were other laws in force, such as the Police Act or the Penal Code.
"Section 15(5) (a) only involves action that the universities can take against their students for involvement in politics. That does not prohibit the authorities, namely the police, from taking action based on other possible offences, such as participating in illegal political rallies," Bon warned.
"Laws under the Police Act still apply, as do other existing prohibition laws. That is why draconian laws that prohibit our fundamental liberty as guaranteed under the constitution should be repealed."
Bon, who was one of the lawyers representing the ISA 7 students who were suspended from public institutions of higher learning for taking part in an illegal assembly in 2001, pointed out that they were charged under Section 27 of the Police Act and action was taken against them under a different sub-section of Section 15 of the UUCA to suspend them.
The lawyer also pointed out that despite Section 15(5) (a) of the UUCA being declared null and void, Parliament could legally re-enact Section 15 to impose similar requirements as before the landmark appellate court's decision.
"They cannnot use Section 15(5) (a) but can have it re-enacted, possibly as Section 15(5) A, which is legal and such things have been done in the past. However, Parliament should clearly study the implications, as this will be an unpopular decision following the Court of Appeal ruling," he said.
Bon also urged UKM not to appeal the decision so that the landmark decision could stand.
Even if the Federal Court overturns Monday's decision, action cannot be taken against them between now and until the decision of the country's highest court is made, former United Nations special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy said today.
"At present, the Court of Appeal decision is good law. Students can participate in politics without fear of action being taken against them by their universities," Param said."The prohibition on students' involvement in politics is not good law now. Unless the Federal Court overturns Monday's decision, what we have today still stands.
"Between now and the appeal period, students have the right to engage in politics without fear. This is because the law, if the Federal Court overturns the Appeal Court decision, cannot be applied retrospectively. That is very clear," the veteran lawyer added.
As far as the law is concerned, said Param, a former Bar Council president, Section 15(5) (a) is no longer in existence following the court ruling, and the statement yesterday by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz was clearly wrong.
In a landmark 2-1 majority decision on Monday, the Court of Appeal judges Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Linton Albert allowed four former Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia students appeal to declare Section 15 (5) (a) as unconstitutional.
Section 15(5) (a) states: No student of the University and no organisation, body or group of students of the University which is established by, under or in accordance with the Constitution, shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to -
(a) any political party, whether in or outside Malaysia;
Concurring with Param, Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights campaigner Edmund Bon said as far as the law was concerned, that section of the UUCA had become non-existent following Monday's decision.
No greenlight for rallies or other offences
However, Bon warned that even though students were now free to be involved in politics, it did not entirely mean they could participate in rallies as there were other laws in force, such as the Police Act or the Penal Code.
"Section 15(5) (a) only involves action that the universities can take against their students for involvement in politics. That does not prohibit the authorities, namely the police, from taking action based on other possible offences, such as participating in illegal political rallies," Bon warned."Laws under the Police Act still apply, as do other existing prohibition laws. That is why draconian laws that prohibit our fundamental liberty as guaranteed under the constitution should be repealed."
Bon, who was one of the lawyers representing the ISA 7 students who were suspended from public institutions of higher learning for taking part in an illegal assembly in 2001, pointed out that they were charged under Section 27 of the Police Act and action was taken against them under a different sub-section of Section 15 of the UUCA to suspend them.
The lawyer also pointed out that despite Section 15(5) (a) of the UUCA being declared null and void, Parliament could legally re-enact Section 15 to impose similar requirements as before the landmark appellate court's decision.
"They cannnot use Section 15(5) (a) but can have it re-enacted, possibly as Section 15(5) A, which is legal and such things have been done in the past. However, Parliament should clearly study the implications, as this will be an unpopular decision following the Court of Appeal ruling," he said.
Bon also urged UKM not to appeal the decision so that the landmark decision could stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.