This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on January 29, 2016.

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here yesterday allowed an appeal by Padang Serai member of parliament N Surendran to include a legal question in his bid to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.

Judge Datuk Karim Rahman said there was merit to include the third question to be heard during a reference proceeding later.

The question was whether the prosecution must prove the intention of an accused person charged with sedition.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove intention and the act of the crime.

However, the Sedition Act 1948 said intention need not be proven.

In December 2014, Sessions Court Judge Ahmad Bache only allowed two constitutional questions to be referred to the High Court but refused the third.

The questions were whether the Sedition Act as a pre-Merdeka law violated the Federal Constitution and if the law contravenes with Articles 10, 8 and 5 of the Constitution.

The High Court will hear Surendran’s reference applications on the three questions on March 7.

Surendran filed the application on Oct 15, 2014.

He was charged on Aug 28 with making a seditious statement relating to former opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s second sodomy case.

The offence was allegedly committed through YouTube at the Palace of Justice in Precinct 3, Putrajaya, between 2pm and 4pm on Aug 8.

The charge, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, carries a maximum three years’ imprisonment or RM5,000 fine or both upon conviction. — The Malaysian Insider