Muhyiddin Yassin’s Sedition Case Remitted to High Court by Federal Court
The Federal Court has sent the sedition case involving former Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin back to the High Court for trial. A five-member bench of the apex court decided not to rule on the constitutional questions presented by the former premier, opting instead to allow these matters to be addressed during the trial proceedings.
The court has scheduled case management before a senior assistant registrar in Kuala Lumpur. This session will allow all parties involved to receive directions for the upcoming trial.
The decision was announced by the bench chairman, Abu Bakar Jais, who also holds the position of Court of Appeal president. He stated that both the prosecution and the defence had agreed that the constitutional questions raised could be appropriately handled by the trial judge. “If the High Court makes a mistake, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court can correct it on appeal,” he remarked.
Among the critical constitutional questions posed to the Federal Court was the determination of whether intent to commit an offence is a necessary element in cases prosecuted under the Sedition Act, or if sedition is considered a strict liability offence. This distinction holds significant implications for the burden of proof and the defence strategies available.
The other esteemed judges on the bench who heard the reference application included Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Datuk Seri Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, along with Justices Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais.
At the commencement of the proceedings, Abu Bakar Jais indicated that the questions brought before the apex court could indeed be raised and argued before the trial judge. He also clarified that no adverse decision had been made against Muhyiddin at this stage, as the prosecution would still be required to present its evidence and witnesses to establish a prima facie case.
Following a brief recess, Muhyiddin’s lead counsel, Amer Hamzah Arshad, informed the bench that both the prosecution and defence had carefully considered the guidance provided by the court.
“We have since taken instructions from our client. We have discussed with the respondent (prosecution) who accepts that the question of intention is a live issue which can be properly raised during trial,” Arshad stated. This agreement signifies a crucial step, allowing the trial to proceed with the understanding that the element of intent will be a central point of contention.
The reference application, filed under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, pertains to remarks allegedly made by Muhyiddin in August 2024. These statements were made in the lead-up to the Nenggiri by-election.
Muhyiddin faces charges for allegedly questioning the discretionary authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at that time. This questioning purportedly followed the monarch’s decision not to appoint him as Prime Minister after the 2022 general election, despite Muhyiddin’s assertion that he commanded the support of 115 Members of Parliament.
The president of Bersatu and Member of Parliament for Pagoh was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. This section carries a maximum penalty of a RM5,000 fine, a jail term of up to three years, or a combination of both.
Muhyiddin’s legal team has argued that, among other points, the speech in question discussed Article 43 of the Federal Constitution. They contend that discussions pertaining to constitutional provisions cannot constitute an offence under the Sedition Act. This defence highlights a potential legal challenge to the applicability of the Sedition Act in this specific context.
Muhyiddin was present in court for the proceedings. He was represented by a legal team that included lawyers Rosli Dahlan, Chetan Jethwani, and Joshua Tay. The prosecution team comprised Deputy Public Prosecutors Saiful Hazmi Saad, Ahmad Zazali Omar, and Nadia Izhar.
