KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — DAP MP Teresa Kok will be a victim of discrimination if her sedition case over a satirical Chinese New Year video is not heard in the High Court like the cases of other lawmakers such as the late Karpal Singh, a lawyer told the court today.
Kok’s lawyer Sankara Nair cited a list of past sedition cases involving lawmakers that were initiated at the High Court.
“Importantly, Karpal Singh was an MP, so was Fan Yew Teng, so was Mark Koding when he was charged.
“My client is an MP as well, three-term MP, very senior in the party. So why the discrimination?” the Seputeh MP’s lawyer asked at the Kuala Lumpur Criminal High Court.
According to the country’s laws, a case that starts at the Sessions Court can only end at the Court of Appeal, while a case initially heard at the High Court can go all the way to the Federal Court.
Today, Sankara argued that Kok should not be deprived of her rights to have her case decided at the Federal Court, also known as the highest court of the land, if the need arises.
Kok, who was charged with sedition at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on May 6 last year over her “Onederful Malaysia CNY 2014” video, had applied to transfer her trial to the High Court.
Nair said that Kok’s application revolves around her right to have the opportunity to get a fair and final decision from the Federal Court, noting that his client was not questioning the competence of the Sessions Court.
But government lawyer Lailawati Ali said there was nothing to show that Kok would be “deprived of a fair and impartial trial” if her case started at the Sessions Court.
Lailawati said it was not known if the case would actually reach the Federal Court even if it were to be transferred to the High Court, also pointing out that the Court of Appeal is competent to decide on cases from the lower courts.
The deputy public prosecutor also said the Attorney-General’s charging of Kok in the Sessions Court was not done maliciously or in bad faith, as it was done according to normal procedures and many other cases.
“How has it caused prejudice to the applicant? All courts are competent to hear matters of law,” she said, insisting that the interpretation of law is not limited to the High Court or Federal Court.
Lailawati also said past examples like Karpal Singh’s and Mark Koding’s sedition cases cannot be followed blindly as it would depend on the facts of their respective cases.
Earlier, Nair said that questions of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise in Kok’s case, citing as example the fact that the original Sedition Act 1948’s Section 2 did not define seditious “publications” as covering material on the Internet or websites.
“In 1948, there was no Internet, there was no websites, no uploading of video on the Internet,” he said, also citing as evidence Putrajaya’s recent legal amendments to the Sedition Act to cover publications through electronic means.
Kok’s 11-minute video clip was posted online on popular video-sharing website YouTube.
He also said sending Kok’s case to the High Court would expedite it and spare the courts from months of delays, as a trial in the Sessions Court would have to be frequently paused when questions of law have to be referred to the higher courts.
Justice Datuk Kamardin Hashim is set to deliver his decision on June 25 on whether Kok’s case should be heard at the High Court.