Lawyer gives A-G 48 hours to file contempt of court against top cop

BY EILEEN NG
MAY 04, 2014

The anti-GST rally in Kuala Lumpur on May Day was largely incident-free but the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar says a few protesters had brought smoke bombs, flares and weapons to the gathering. – The Malaysian Insider pic, May 4, 2014.Lawyer N. Surendran has given 48 hours, from tomorrow, to Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to file a contempt of court against the country's top cop for ignoring the Court of Appeal decision that allows Malaysians to assemble without fear.

He said the statement by Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar had put the administration of justice in disrepute and that itself was an act of contempt.

According to national news agency Bernama, Khalid had said police had begun probing into Thursday's anti-GST rally in Kuala Lumpur for allegedly violating several conditions of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA), including failure to give 10-day notice before holding the assembly and bringing smoke bombs, flares and weapons to the gathering.

"I will write to the A-G on Monday to institute contempt proceedings against the IGP as his statement is a blatant disregard and a flagrant flouting of the Court of Appeal decision.

“I will give him 48 hours due to the urgency of the matter, failing which I will do so myself," he told The Malaysian Insider. 

Surendran was the lawyer who led the challenge against the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA), which led to the Court of Appeal ruling on April 25 that Section 9 (5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) providing for punishment for failure to give 10 days' notice to the authorities before a protest was unconstitutional.

A three-man bench led by judge Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof ruled that Section 9 (5) of the act presented “some conceptual difficulty” as it considered peaceful assemblies lawful regardless of compliance with the notice.

“That which is fundamentally lawful cannot be criminalised,” he had said when reading out a section of the judgment.

In welcoming the judgment, lawyers and lawmakers had said this meant the public could assembly freely without worrying about any action being taken against them unless they destroyed property or committed criminal acts. – May 4, 2014.