High Court quashes decision to suspend The Edge
The High Court has quashed the Home Ministry's three-months suspension order against The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge Financial Weekly.
The decision was handed down by Justice Asmabi Mohamad.
The paper was suspended by the Home Ministry for three months beginning July 27 due to allegedly undesirable articles that it published over 1MDB.
Justice
Asmabi ruled the decision by the home minister to suspend the financial
papers was full of illegality and irrationality, and breached the rules
of natural justice.
The judge said the Home Ministry did not furnish particulars to The Edge on
which articles they were referring to in the show-cause letter issued
in early July, with the publication given seven days to reply.
Since
the particulars were not clear, Justice Asmabi said it was difficult
for the applicants to respond to the show-cause letter.
“Hence,
the decision to suspend could be seen as violating the rules of natural
justice,” she said, adding that the daily had published 300 articles on
1MDB since 2009.
While the Home Ministry alleges The Edge
had cited sources of information deemed undesirable from portals but it
(Home Ministry) also did not refer to which portals or articles it
referred to or whether it came from the Sarawak Report, said the judge.
Justice
Asmabi, also ruled the minister acted ultra vires to impose the ban
under Section 7(1) of the Publication and Printing Presses Act 1984, as
to issue a ban, it needs to be gazetted first by the minister.
She also ordered the damages suffered by The Edge to be assessed, and ordered the Home Ministry to pay costs of RM15,000 to The Edge.
'Publishing can resume tomorrow'
According
to the lawyer for The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd, Raja Eileen Soraya
Raja Aman, who together appeared with lead counsel Darryl Goon, the
daily can resume publishing tomorrow.
Goon
had submitted two weeks ago that if a ban were to be imposed under
Section 7(1) of the Act, the word 1MDB had to be gazetted by the
minister to be banned.
"There is no gazette of an order, directly or indirectly, against 1MDB and hence there is no breach of Section 7 (1).
"Therefore, The Edge
could not have committed a breach as there was no order. Hence the
suspension is unconstitutional and a violation of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution," the
senior lawyer had submitted on Sept 7.
It was reported that the Home Ministry secretary-general Alwi Ibrahim, issued a statement on July 24,
and said the suspensions of the publications were made after the
ministry had scrutinised their reports on 1MDB and the reply to the
show-cause letter issued earlier.
The ministry gave three reasons for suspending the publications, which it said, violated Section 7(1) of the PPPA.
Senior
federal counsel Alice Loke said she would seek instructions from the
attorney-general and the Home Ministry on whether to file an appeal. - Malaysiakini, 21/9/2015
Suspension of The Edge daily, weekly lifted
The
High Court has lifted the 3-month suspension of The Edge Weekly and The
Edge Financial Daily. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 21,
2015. Judge Datuk Asmabi Mohamad in allowing the judicial review application said the respondent (minister) had breached Section 7 (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
"The respondent did not comply with procedural fairness as he did not give particulars of suspension to the applicant," she said.
The judge said the minister had taken irrelevant consideration to impose a blanket ban of three months. The Home Ministry had suspended the publishing permit of The Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial Daily for three months effective from July 27.
Asmabi said the respondent should have been more careful to issue the order as it had affected the livelihood of those employed by the applicant.
She said the court would assess damages to be awarded later and also gave RM15,000 in costs.
In an immediate response, lawyer Darryl Goon said the publisher, The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd, could begin publication of the two papers immediately as there were no stay application by the government.
Senior federal counsel Alice Loke Yee Ching told reporters that she had to take instructions from her superiors before a decision was made to appeal.
“We have a month to do so.”
A cursory glance at Asmabi’s ruling revealed that the court accepted in totality the submission put forward by Goon.
A letter from the ministry stated that the papers’ coverage of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal was “prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to public order, security or likely to alarm public opinion or is likely to be prejudicial to public and national interests”.
This is the first time a publisher is seeking legal recourse and won, following the suspension of its coverage of debt-ridden 1MDB.
Ministry secretary-general Datuk Alwi Ibrahim, had in a statement on July 24, said the suspension of the publications was made after the ministry had scrutinised their reports on 1MDB and the reply to the show-cause letter issued earlier.
The ministry gave three reasons for suspending the publications, which it said, violated Section 7(1) of the PPPA.
It said the headings and reporting by the two publications had raised questions and created negative public perceptions towards 1MDB, a Finance Ministry-owned firm, and implicating the government and national leaders.
Second, it also found the reports to be based on doubtful and unverified information, which it said might alarm public opinion and might be prejudicial to public order and national interests.
Third, the ministry said the 1MDB issue was being investigated by a special task force and it was, therefore, inappropriate for reportage on the issue to create negative perceptions.
Goon, in his submission on September 7, said the suspension order on grounds they carried undesirable reports was illegal as the order was not published in a gazette.
He said under Section 7(1) of the PPPA, an undesirable publication could only be prohibited by order of the minister published in a gazette.
“This was not done so in this case, therefore, the suspension is illegal because there was no breach of Section 7(1).”
Goon said the publisher took the position that the decision to suspend was illegal and ultra vires, and was also unconstitutional. He said under the constitution, the only permissible restriction to the right to freedom of speech and expression are if it was in the interest of:
* the security of the federation, friendly relations with other countries and public order and morality; and,
* to protect the privileges of Parliament.
“None of the grounds given by the minister come within the ambit of these permissible restrictions,” he said in the judicial application to challenge the suspension.
Goon said the suspension was a breach against natural justice and the publisher was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. – September 21, 2015, Malaysian Insider
- See more at:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/suspension-of-the-edge-daily-weekly-lifted#sthash.VHM5QRdd.dpuf
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment