Facebook Twitter Google Plus Vimeo Youtube Feed Feedburner

ROS LBoard 1

Adam Adli’s sedition appeal deferred

 | November 7, 2016

Court of Appeal bench assures Adam he will not be prejudiced following a ruling to be delivered in a similar case.


PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has deferred the appeal of student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim who was fined for inciting the public to topple Putrajaya soon after the 13th General Election.

Court of Appeal Judge Mohtarudin Baki told the defence and prosecution to hold on as he was about to deliver a ruling on the same subject, but in another case.

On July 18, Mohtarudin heard Muhammad Safwan Anang’s appeal against the High Court decision last year to uphold his conviction under the Sedition Act 1948.

The prosecution had cross-appealed the RM5,000 fine and wanted Safwan jailed.

Safwan and Adam made the seditious speeches on May 13, 2013, a week after GE13 and after the Barisan Nasional was returned to power in a contentious poll.

In Safwan’s case, Mohtarudin sat with justices Zakaria Sam and Prasad Sandosham Abraham while in today’s matter Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil sat with Mohtarudin and Abraham.

Lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, who is appearing for Adam, raised the question whether his client’s appeal would be pre-empted as a result of the ruling in Safwan’s case.

Mohtarudin assured Adam he would not be prejudiced and fixed case management for Dec 6.

Adam was found guilty by the Sessions Court on Sept 19, 2014 and was sentenced to 12 months’ jail.

The High Court, however, while upholding Adam’s conviction in February this year, substituted the jail term with a fine of RM5,000.


Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.