CARETAKER Kedah menteri besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor has cried foul over his arrest and prosecution for sedition.

Sanusi said he was being politically persecuted and silenced for his political rivals to have an advantage in the upcoming elections in six states.

“Their intent is to disrupt our (Perikatan Nasional) progress for the state elections. They sped up the investigations into me and it was done in just three days,” Sanusi told reporters after posting bail at the Selayang sessions court.

The 3am arrest was explained by Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain.

Now, here is possibly why prosecution was effected after just three days of investigation.

Sanusi is charged under section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 for statements made on July 11 that insulted the Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah during a speech in Gombak. The provision states that any person who does any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency shall be guilty of an offence.

The term “seditious tendency” is explained by section 3(1)(a) as a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government. By section 3(2)(a), however, an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency to show that any ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures.

Another important provision is section 3(3) which states that for the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against the act, the intention of the person charged at the time he uttered any seditious words shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the words had a seditious tendency.

More than 50 years ago, in the case of PP v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors (1971), High Court judge Raja Azlan Shah explained the above provisions as follows:

“What the prosecution has to prove and all that the prosecution has to prove is that the words complained of, or words equivalent in substance to those words, were spoken by the accused.

“Once that is proved the accused will be conclusively presumed to have intended the natural consequences of his verbal acts and it is therefore sufficient if his words have a tendency to produce any of the consequences stated in section 3(1) of the Act.

“It is immaterial whether or not the words complained of could have the effect of producing or did in fact produce any of the consequences enumerated in the section. It is also immaterial whether the impugned words were true or false.

“And it is not open to the accused to say that he did not intend his words to bear the meaning which they naturally bear.”

That explains why prosecution against Sanusi was swift. All the prosecution needed to know was that he spoke the seditious words.

His apology to the Selangor ruler only added to the evidence.In a statement, the PAS election director said he had sent a letter to Sultan Sharafuddin explaining the true meaning of his words, which he said were taken out of context by Pakatan Harapan  and Barisan Nasional.

He would not have explained himself if he had not spoken those words. – July 19, 2023.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.