©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)
BY V. ANBALAGAN
The Federal Court has allowed the Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s (DBKL) leave application to appeal against the ruling that it was illegal for DBKL enforcement officers to tear down non–commercial banners at the Bar Council headquarters seven years ago.
A five–man bench chaired by Tan Sri Suriyadi Abdul Halim Omar decided today that DBKL had fulfilled the requirements of Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act for the apex court to hear the merits of its appeal.
The provision states that an applicant must pose questions of importance upon which the decision of the apex court would be of public advantage.
The legal question posed is whether DBKL by–laws only apply to commercial advertisements.
Lawyer Ranjit Singh, who represented the council, said the outcome of the decision by the Federal Court would have a bearing on all local governments in the country.
"All other local authorities have similar by–laws to that of DBKL," he told reporters.
On April 29 this year, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that it was illegal for DBKL enforcement officers to bring down non–commercial banners at the council headquarters in 2007.
The banners were displayed at the council premises in conjunction with its Human Rights Day celebration.
In 2012, judicial commissioner SM Komathy Suppiah ruled that the banners on human rights did not fall within the realm of “advertisement” that requires a licence from DBKL.
She awarded the council RM12,000 in general damages and RM320 as special damages for the banners.
The council had in 2009 filed its action on the tearing down of the banners, saying that DBKL's action was unconstitutional and violated freedom of expression.
DBKL enforcement officers came on December 9, 2007, and ordered that the banners be taken down, saying they were advertisements within the meaning of the council’s by–laws and a licence was required to put them up.
Komathy in her judgment said the requirement for a licence for a banner only applied to a commercial product or service.
Using the example of the banner displaying the words of former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, “Buat kerja” (Perform your work), Komathy asked if a licence was required for the banner that was to motivate the staff or to state the ethics of judiciary.
"The banner was displayed for 12 to 15 months or so... Was the banner said to be running foul of the by–law as it was put up without a licence? I think not. There is no compelling reason to give the phrase a wider meaning (like advertisement) as sought by the defendant," she said when ruling on the case.
Komathy said if a literal meaning was adopted in terms of advertisement, it would lead to absurd results as even those that merely expressed ideas, opinions, principles and values would then require a licence. – October 15, 2014.