Lawyers for Liberty cries foul after AGC drops Zamri and Firdaus cases.
MIC president Tan Sri SA Vigneswaran has accused the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) of “selective enforcement” following its decision not to prosecute Zamri Vinoth and Firdaus Wong over alleged seditious and defamatory remarks.
He said the decision has raised public concern after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, confirmed there was “insufficient evidence” to pursue charges.
Vigneswaran noted that nearly 900 police reports had been lodged against Zamri over a Facebook post relating to the relocation of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in March 2025.
He emphasised that the 3R principle — concerning race, religion and royalty — “is not a legal tool to defend the sanctity of only one religion,” but exists to preserve religious harmony and public order in a multi-religious society.
“To enforce the 3R doctrine only when a particular race or religion is affected, while failing to act decisively when other races or faiths are insulted, reflects a dangerous and unacceptable double standard,” he said in a statement on Tuesday (22 July).
He added that such actions undermine Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Vigneswaran questioned the AGC’s conclusion, arguing that Zamri’s post, which caused public outrage, was “publicly made, widely circulated, and interpreted as seditious, defamatory and inciting.”
“It is inconceivable that such conduct does not meet the legal threshold for criminal charges under the Penal Code or the Sedition Act 1948,” he said.
He added that prosecution in such cases is not merely punitive, but also serves as a deterrent and reinforces the principle that “no one is above the law” and that “freedom of religion includes protection from religious defamation.”
Vigneswaran urged the AGC to clarify its rationale, warning that silence could be perceived as bias and risk inflaming divisions in Malaysia’s multiracial society.
“Selective silence is not neutrality. It is complicity.
“If the 3R doctrine is to have any meaning in today’s Malaysia, it must be applied across all faiths — with fairness, firmness and integrity,” he said.
Meanwhile, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) also criticised the government following the AGC’s decision. In a statement, LFL director Zaid Malek said the outcome “smacks of double standards and selective prosecution.”
He contrasted the treatment of Zamri and Firdaus with the swift and severe action taken against Chiok Wai Loong during the 2024 “Allah socks” controversy.
“He was nabbed, convicted without legal representation and thrown into jail. It was all done at lightning speed, and he still faces trial at present on criminal charges.
“The directors of the film Mentega Terbang also face criminal charges simply for making a film dealing with a Muslim girl grappling with her religion. This, they claim, insulted Islam.
“The treatment meted out to Zamri and Firdaus, who have long made serious and provocative statements touching on religion and race relations, is entirely different.
“The usual hair-trigger and swift action when there is a perceived slight on Islam, as in the cases above, is glaringly absent.
“What else can be surmised, if not that the decision is based upon the need to appease a certain section of voters?” Zaid asked.
He added that the government’s failure to treat all cases equally violates Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and undermines confidence in the criminal justice system.
“Since the government has decided not to proceed in these cases, will they now drop the charges against Mentega Terbang and Chiok? We call upon them to do so immediately,” he said.
In a written response to Jelutong MP RSN Rayer, Azalina explained that the AGC reached its decision after reviewing an investigation paper submitted by the police.
“Based on the response from AGC, there is insufficient evidence to prove the elements of an offence under any legal provision to prosecute the two individuals mentioned in court,” she said.
However, she added that criminal cases have no limitation period and further investigation and review may be conducted if new developments arise.