Latest news with #PAA2012
Free Malaysia Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Suaram urges govt to clarify moratorium on Peaceful Assembly Act
Suaram executive director Azura Nasron said Sections 9(5) and 11 of the PAA 2012 had long operated to entrench an authorisation-centric culture where peaceful assemblies were treated as privileges subject to approval. PETALING JAYA : An NGO has called on the government to clarify the nature of its moratorium on legal proceedings under Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012, warning that ambiguity on the matter could undermine ongoing reform efforts. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) executive director Azura Nasron said home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail's remarks yesterday on the moratorium requires clarification. 'It remains unclear whether this is a new policy shift or a misstatement of the Cabinet decision that focussed only on Section 11,' she said in a statement. On Feb 13, Saifuddin said the government would place a moratorium on Section 11 of the PAA, which mandates that organisers seek the consent of venue owners or occupants before holding an assembly at a particular venue. He said this was in view of the government's plan to amend the section. 'This means no action will be taken on the organisers of any assembly until the amendments are approved (by the Dewan Rakyat),' he said. Saifuddin said yesterday an amendment to Section 11 would be tabled in the next Parliament meeting. He said his ministry would also examine the Federal Court's ruling that Section 9(5), which criminalises failure to notify the police five days in advance of holding a peaceful assembly, was unconstitutional. He said Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had also enforced a moratorium on any legal proceedings under Section 9(5) of the PAA as part of his agenda to reform the law. Azura said the moratorium must be explicitly announced and fully enforced on all ongoing investigations and prosecutions, until legislative repeal was completed. 'The government must not miss this critical opportunity to deliver the 'comprehensive reform of laws related to the right to assemble' it has pledged to implement,' she said. She also called on the government to repeal Section 9(5), consult civil society on the amendment, and review other restrictive provisions such as the age limit under Section 4(d) prohibiting those below 21 years old from organising assemblies. 'While the move to amend Section 11 of the PAA is necessary, it must not distract from the urgent need to repeal Section 9(5) in full. 'Sections 9(5) and 11 have long operated in tandem to entrench an authorisation-centric culture, where peaceful assemblies are treated as privileges subject to approval rather than inalienable constitutional rights. 'Amending one without repealing the other leaves the underlying legal framework fundamentally flawed and impairs the development of a culture grounded in the presumption that peaceful assemblies are lawful,' she said.
New Straits Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
No reason to charge organisers who fail to give notice on assemblies, say lawyers
KUALA LUMPUR: There is no reason to haul people to court for failing to provide prior notification for assemblies, legal experts have said. After the Federal Court declared that Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assemblies Act 2012 was unconstitutional, the police must abide by this ruling, said former co-chair of the Bar Council Human Rights Committee and Constitutional Law Committee Andrew Khoo. "The problem is that in the past, there have been occasions where law enforcement agencies have ignored court orders with can never and no longer be the case. "What this decision affirms is the constitutional right to freedom of peaceful assembly," he said. Constitutional lawyer Joshua Wu said that there were conflicting decisions prior to the Federal Court's ruling yesterday. "The cases of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad v PP and PP v Yuneswaran Ramaraj (at the Court of Appeal) – Section 9(5) of the PAA 2012 was held to be unconstitutional in Nik Nazmi's case, but was held to be constitutional in Yuneswaran's case," he said. Consequently, the police continued to use Section 9(5) against organisers of public assemblies who did not give the police the five days notice required under Section 9(1) of the Act, he said. "There will no longer be criminal sanctions or prosecutions for non-compliance with Section 9(1) of the Act. This will consequently open the doors for more public assemblies to be organised, particularly on short notice," he said. He explained the Federal Constitution only allowed for parliament to introduce "restrictions" and not "prohibitions", which was why Section 9(5) of the PAA 2012 was deemed unconstitutional. International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) constitutional expert Associate Professor Datuk Dr Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain, however, said local authorities must provide a space to assemble under Section 9(2) of the Act to allow operating Section 9(5). "Article 10 already imposes a limitation to a public assembly besides other constitutional restrictions. "That is why curtailing the freedom to a peaceful assembly without providing or stipulating a place can be an unproportionate balance of restrictions under Article 10. The question here is, does Section 9 provide such reasonable restrictions?" he asked. He added that subsection (5) must be read with subsection (2) of the provision. "Reading the above sections, the right approach is that the local authority must provide an assembly place under Section 9(2) before enforcing Section 9(5). "Therefore, the issue is whether Section 9(5) can be enforced by the authorities in the case before the court. In my opinion, a constitutionality issue does not arise," he said. Yesterday, the Federal Court declared it unconstitutional to criminalise the failure to notify the police five days in advance before holding a peaceful assembly. Delivering the unanimous decision by a five-member bench, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 imposed a penalty that went beyond what was allowed under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, which guaranteed the freedom of speech, assembly and association.
