This afternoon (25/6/2012) the UMNO apex Federal Judges Tan Sri Zulkifli bin Ahmad Makinuddin, Tan Sri Suriyadi bin Halim Omar, Tan Sri Hasan bin Lah, Tan Sri Zaleha bte Zahari & Tan Sri Zainun bte Ali dismissed the appeal by Hindraf de facto leader P. Uthayakumar for the Sedition charges against him to be dismissed for being ultra vires Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution.

This is so irrespective of whether Uthayakumar spoke the truth, did not incite anybody and his statements were not Seditious. A mere Seditious tendency is sufficient to jail Uthayakumar for 3 years. This apex Court decided so and this is final and there cannot be anymore appeal to this.

At the very outset Uthyakumar’s lawyer M. Manoharan applied that the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Noorin Badaruddin is not to be the DPP appearing in this case as a High Court application had been filed on 22/6/2012 and is pending hearing to recuse herself from prosecuting because she had submitted that justice to a police witness ie the Chief Police Officer of Sarawak Dato Acryl Sani is more important than justice to the accused Uthayakumar. Further she had fabricated evidence in Court ie tendering a very badly photocopied black and white photo to prove a dead Indian man and Uthayakumar inciting the Indians. But when Uthayakumar managed to by chance “squeeze out” a colour copy of the very same photo from another police witness. Even DCP Acryl Sani thereafter conceded that the Indian man now does not look dead but alive and appears to be standing.

As expected this application to recuse this DPP was also turned down.

Despite M. Manoharan’s submission that the Sedition Act 1948 is unconstitutional on three grounds:-

1. Only requires Seditious tendencies and not Sedition per se.

2. The intention is irrelevant in a Sedition Charge.

3. The truth is also irrelevant in a Sedition Charge.

this Federal Court dismissed Uthayakumar’s appeal.

M. Manoharan submitted that even a first year law student would know that for any criminal offence there must be mens rea (intention) and (actus reas) the happening. But for the Sedition Act, both of this is not required and one can be jailed for up to 3 years just like that. The DPP submitted that this is the absolute law in 1 Malay-sia. In this case all five ie 100% of the Federal Court malay muslims Judges decided against Hindraf.

This appeal arose out of Uthayakumar’s letter on Hindraf letterhead dated 15/11/2007 (in the prelude to the 25^th November 2007 watershed Hindraf Rally) to then British Prime Minister Gordon seeking International and in particular the Commonwealth intervention in the Kg Medan “ethnic cleansing” and state sponsored racism and discrimination targeting the vulnerable Indian poor.

With this federal Court decision so goes the fundamental liberties safeguard ie Article 4 (Supremacy of the Federal Constitution) Article 5 (Liberty of the Person) Article 8 (Freedom of the person) and Article 10 (Freedom of speech) as per the submission of the DPP and accepted as a matter of course by these Federal Court Malay-sian Judges.

The Federal Court within the hour held that this their decision was unanimous and has no merits. And that this obsolete colonial era Sedition Act of 1948 is good law and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution which is the highest law of the country