PUTRAJAYA (March 1, 2012): Lawyer Karpal Singh has applied for a review of the Appellate Court’s decision ordering him to enter his defence on a sedition charge.

In his affidavit accompanying the notice of motion, he cited among others, quorum failure, namely that one of the three judges in the panel, Datuk Clement Allan Skinner, was not proficient in Bahasa Malaysia.

“So there is doubt whether or not he (Justice Clement) understood and agreed with the 105-page judgement written and prepared by Justice Datuk Ahmad Maarop in Bahasa Malaysia,” he contended.

Karpal Singh, 71, wants the Appellate Court to exercise its inherent powers and set aside the decision made by the panel on Jan 20, 2011 which dismissed a High Court decision on June 11, 2010 to acquit him.

He proposed a new hearing of the prosecution’s appeal and by a different quorum.

Karpal Singh is accused of uttering seditious words against the Perak Sultan at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama, Kuala Lumpur between noon and 12.30pm on Feb 6, 2009.

He is alleged to have said that the Sultan’s removal of Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Mentri Besar and Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir’s appointment to the position could be questioned in a court of law.

The charge, under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 carries a maximum RM5,000 fine or three years’ jail or both, on conviction.

In his application, Karpal Singh also contended that the panel had acted beyond its appellate jurisdiction in deciding that questioning the rights and privileges of the Sultan was an offence relevant to the constitution under Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act 1948.

He contended that the prosecution’s submissions at the appeal stage invoking Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act was prejudicial.

He said he had not raised the provision at the High Court stage and had appropriately applied to refer the question on the constitution to the Federal Court.

Karpal Singh claimed in his affidavit that in the course of exploring for specifics in regard to Section 3(1)(f), he lost the opportunity to broach it at the defence stage in the High Court as the presiding judge too was bound in the pursual for the specifics.

He said submissions referring to the constitution during the appeal was only to show probability and not as a substantive issue for the the court to base its decision on. — Bernama