Law professor’s sedition trial starts as court refuses adjournment, says lawyer

Universiti Malaya law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom seen here speaking at a forum in Kuala Lumpur last month. His sedition trial will proceed after the Sessions Court dismissed an application to halt the trial despite the filing of a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on his High Court case dismissal yesterday. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Seth Akmal, January 14, 2016.Universiti Malaya law associate professor Dr Azmi Sharom's sedition trial kicked off in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court today following the refusal of the trial judge to stay proceedings.

Azmi's lawyer Gobind Singh Deo (pic, right) said Sessions judge Amernudin Ahmad dismissed the application to halt the trial despite the filing of a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal this morning.

Yesterday, the High Court threw out Azmi's application to have his case heard in a higher court, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances and evidence for this case to commence in the superior court.

Gobind had submitted that the case would touch on constitutional issues which must be finally determined by the Federal Court.

The lawyer also said that if the trial began in the Sessions Court, it would only end in the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, Gobind said three prosecution witnesses had given their evidence before Amernudin and another two would do so later this afternoon.

"The prosecution is expected to close their case today and submission will be tomorrow," he said.

On September 2, 2014, Azmi was charged with sedition over his comments in an article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told” published in a news portal.

On October 6, the Federal Court also dismissed Azmi’s move to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act 1948, enacted under British rule.

Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the five-man bench, said the act did not run foul of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which pertained to the freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

He said the courts had limited power to review an act passed by Parliament.

- TMI