A DAP lawmaker has ticked off Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Labuan campus) for suspending three final year students who organised a demonstration on campus which allegedly ran afoul of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA). Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching expressed strong condemnation of the university’s decision, saying that UMS needed to respect the students’ constitutional rights. She said that the constitutional protection for freedom of assembly and freedom of expression is enjoyed by all Malaysians, including students. In February, the students had demonstrated in front of the university’s administrative building (UMSKAL) to protest against the university’s decision to take back management of a student-run shop on campus. After a disciplinary hearing on May 22, they have been suspended for a semester with immediate effect. With the suspension, the three final-year students’ graduation will be delayed as the trio are barred from sitting for their final year examinations next week. DAP has urged the university to reverse their decision as it would jeopardise the future of the students. Students have constitutional rights, too Teo, a trained lawyer, reminded UMS that following the landmark ruling of the Court of Appeal in April in the case of Seri Setia Assemblyman Nik Nazmi, the court had ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalise spontaneous public assemblies. “Judge Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer in his judgment has said that the right to assemble was prescribed in the Federal Constitution and could not be imposed with a criminal prosecution if the assembly was peaceful. “University and college students are also members of the public and are fully entitled to the freedoms that are afforded by the Federal Constitution. It is unconstitutional for UMS to penalise the students for organising or taking part in a peaceful assembly,” Teo said. The Court of Appeal had acquitted Nik Nazmi of charges under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) for organising the Black 505 rally at Stadium Kelana Jaya on May 8, 2013. The court ruled that section 9(5) of the PAA which requires 10 day notice for organising a protest violates the constitutional right to freedom of assembly. Although this decision is being appealed, it is still a binding precedent until reversed by a higher court. Rights group Lawyers for Liberty has expressed the view that in the light of this decision, all other cases of charges based on this section of PAA should be dropped. “Let us be clear, until and unless the Federal Court was to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, it remains a good decision and binding on all lower courts. Consequently, there is no longer a recognisable offence under section 9(5) of the PAA and therefore all charges under this provision must necessarily be groundless and the accused persons must be discharged,” its Executive Director Eric Paulsen said. -The Rocket