The Sessions (Cyber) Court in Kuala Lumpur has today postponed the trial hearing of two KiniTV directors Steven Gan and Premesh Chandran, who have been charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for allegedly airing offensive comments about attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.
Judge Zamri Bakar allowed the postponement of the trial, which had been slated to run for three days beginning today, in order to listen to KiniTV's stay application pending an appeal to the High Court.
Besides this, Gan and Premesh’s lawyer K Shanmuga told the court that they are considering filing a representation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, following recent developments as a result of the country being under a new administration.
DPP Mohd Sophian Zakaria did not object to the postponement but indicated to the court that they would need time to file an affidavit to the stay application.
Hence, Zamri fixed May 30 to hear the stay application.
It was previously reported that Gan and Premesh as directors of KiniTV Sdn Bhd, had been charged for airing an allegedly offensive video featuring former Batu Kawan Umno division vice-chief Khairuddin Abu Hassan, titled "Khairuddin: Apandi Ali is not fit to be AG and he should quit immediately".
The video was uploaded in both the English and Bahasa Malaysia sections of KiniTV on July 27, last year.
KiniTV, along with its two directors, had filed an application to strike out the charges against them under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act by declaring it as unconstitutional.
They are contending that the section – which criminalises online publications deemed to be offensive or injurious to the feelings of others – goes against Articles 5, 8, and 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which confers upon journalists the right to report what is stated by politicians.
Article 5 pertains to the liberty of a person, Article 8 to equality, and Article 10(1)(a) to freedom of speech and expression.
Gan, in his supporting affidavit, said that Section 233(1)(a) was not a proportionate legislation in the interest of the country, as it violated the freedom of expression stipulated in Article 10(2)(a) of the constitution.
"Hence, the action of filing the charges against us was against the provisions of the Federal Constitution," he added.
"The action by the MCMC (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) and the Attorney-General's Chambers to formulate the charge was against Section 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which prevents any form of censorship of the Internet, and this is in conflict with Section 233 of the same Act," he said adding that the action was mala fide (in bad faith).
However, that challenge was dismissed by the Sessions Court, resulting in an appeal being made to the High Court about the stay application. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.