LAWYERS for Liberty has claimed that the use of the Sedition Act against caretaker Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor was not right as it is a false narrative.

Its director, Zaid Malek, said it is because the second charge against Sanusi relates to criticism of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

“We refer to Anwar’s defence of the use of the Sedition Act against Sanusi as necessary as it relates ‘to the position, dignity of the rulers.’

“This appears to be a deliberately false and misleading statement on what is contained in the charges against Sanusi,” he said in a statement.

Yesterday, Anwar said there is still a need for the Sedition Act, especially for cases of insult or injury to the Malay rulers.

He said the law was invoked in the case of Sanusi because he had allegedly committed an act of sedition against royalty.

“My principle is that we should avoid the use of the Sedition Act, but this (case) touches the position of the rulers,” he said.

“If it were criticism of the prime minister, I would never use (the sedition act) as justification (for prosecution.

“But this is a matter of the position and dignity of the rulers which must be protected.”

Zaid was referring to Sanusi, who was reported to have questioned if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had indeed decreed that a unity government be formed after the November general election.

“Scrutiny of the second charge reveals that it does not relate to any criticism of a ruler or the Agong,” he said.

“It is, in fact, criticism of Anwar in relation to the formation of the unity government, questioning the claims he had made at the time.

“Therefore, Anwar’s claim that the Sedition Act had been used only because it involves ‘position and dignity of the rulers’ is false.”

He said the charge was related to criticism and mockery of Anwar himself.

“In short, in the second charge, the Sedition Act was used on Sanusi, a vocal political rival, for nothing more than criticising the prime minister. This is abuse of power and oppression, plain and simple,” he said.

“Anwar is now defending this law by suddenly altering his position on the use of the act by claiming that it is acceptable to use it purportedly to safeguard the royal institution.

“The call for its repeal by Anwar and Pakatan Harapan when in opposition never had any such qualifications, and it is deceptive and dishonest to suggest that a distinction should now be made.”

Zaid said it is a constitutional fact that our royal institution plays a part in certain key aspects of governance, such as in the election of a menteri besar and the prime minister, and any questions or criticism that arises on this issue would naturally directly and indirectly touch on their role in such decisions.

“It is a slippery slope to allow the Sedition Act to be used under the guise of protecting the sanctity of the royal institution as the government can extend this same type of argument to other matters, including race or religion,” he said.

“This new, sly, convoluted Anwar-style qualification will only lead to untrammeled use of the Sedition Act.”

He said the Sedition Act 1948 is an unjust law in principle and must be repealed.

“No unjust laws can be made fair, no matter which party is in government, regardless of the reasons,” he said.

“Thus, we reiterate that the government must institute a moratorium on the usage of the Sedition Act and repeal it outright in the next parliamentary session.” – July 19, 2023.