Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh said an enlarged panel would be constituted since it was a public interest case where the Court of Appeal arrived at a split decision in 2016.
“We will raise all factual and legal points for appraisal by the Federal Court, which is also the constitutional court, to interpret the Federal Constitution,” he told FMT.
Karpal, a former DAP national chairman, was convicted in early 2014 for questioning the late Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, for removing from office former menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin during the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis.
Karpal’s lawyers in the trial court and Court of Appeal took the position that the former Bukit Gelugor MP committed no offence as he was merely giving his legal opinion for the ruler to consider.
Ramkarpal said this appeal would also present an opportunity to revisit two Federal Court rulings on the constitutionality of the law enacted during the British colonial era and whether intention must be proven in every sedition case.
Ramkarpal said the Federal Court registry recently fixed the appeal to be heard on March 27.
Karpal died in an accident along the North-South Expressway near Gua Tempurung on April 17, 2014, and his widow Gurmit Kaur, who is also the administrator of her late husband’s estate, is now the substitute appellant.
On May 30, 2016, the Court of Appeal in a 2-1 ruling allowed Karpal’s appeal and reduced the RM4,000 fine to RM1,800 but the conviction was upheld.
That ruling meant Gurmit could enjoy his pension and other benefits accorded to an elected representative.
Justice Mohtarudin Baki, along with Justice Kamardin Hashim, ruled the conviction was safe.
“The accused crossed the line when he gave his comments about the Sultan removing the former menteri besar. He was giving his comments. However, it’s not worthy to make such comments about a ruler.” Mohtarudin said.
However, dissenting judge Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, now elevated to the Federal Court, found that Karpal’s defence fell under Section 3(2) of the Sedition Act.
“The accused wanted to show the ruler was wrong,” she had said.
In 2010, Karpal was charged after he said the removal of Nizar by the Sultan and the appointment of Zambry Abdul Kadir as the new menteri besar, could be questioned in court.
The case has a checkered history as Karpal was initially acquitted by trial judge Azman Abdullah in June 2010, but the Court of Appeal in 2012 ordered him to enter defence following an appeal by the government
The same judge who acquitted Karpal found him guilty of the offence in 2014, a month before the latter’s death.
Azman said Karpal’s press statement had the tendency to incite hatred, insult and disloyalty to the ruler.
The seven-member bench will also have the opportunity to revisit the Federal Court’s ruling last year which held there was no need to prove intent for the offence of sedition.
The panel could also review the position taken by a five-member apex court in 2015 that the Sedition Act 1948 was a validly enacted legislation although passed before the Malayan Parliament came into existence in 1959.