(delivering the judgment of the Court): The accused, a lawyer, was a member of the Dewan Rakyat, i.e., the House of Representatives, elected for a constituency in Sabah; and on October 11, 1978, he made in the House a speech which the Public Prosecutor thought was seditious, and accordingly he was charged with committing an offence contrary to section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969).

The charge reads as follows:

"That you on October 11, 1978, in the Dewan Rakyat, in the City of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory, in the course of your speech before the said Dewan did utter seditious words to wit, as per attached Appendix 'A', and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 (Revised 1969)".

After the end of the prosecution case in the High Court defence counsel submitted no case to answer, but the learned trial Judge held that there was, and called on the accused to enter on his defence; whereupon his counsel announced that the defence did not wish to call any witness.

The judge could have decided the matter then; but on application by the defence, he referred the matter to this court under sections 48 and 49 of the Courts of Judicature Act 7 of 1964 (Revised 1972), Act 91, which provide:

"48. (1) Where in any proceedings in any High Court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution the Judge hearing such proceedings may stay the same on such terms as may be just to await the decision of such question by the Federal Court.

(2) An order staying proceedings under this section may be made by the Judge of his own motion or on the application of any party and shall be made at such stage of the proceedings as the Judge may see fit having regard to the decision of such questions of fact as may be necessary to be settled to assist the Federal Court in deciding the question which has arisen and to the speedy and economical final determination of the proceedings.

(3) Where an order for stay of proceedings has been made under this section the Judge shall state the question which in his opinion has arisen as to the effect of the Constitution in the form of a special case which so far as may be possible shall state the said question in a form which shall permit of an answer being given in the affirmative or the negative.

(4) Where a Judge shall have stated a special case under this section the same shall be transmitted to the Federal Court in accordance with the rules of court of the Federal Court.

49. (1) Where a special case has been transmitted to the Federal Court under section 48 the Federal Court shall, subject to any rules of court of the Federal Court, deal with the case and hear and determine it in the same way as an appeal to the Federal Court.

(2) When the Federal Court shall have determined any special case under this section the High Court in which the proceedings in the course of which the case has been stated are pending shall continue and dispose of such proceedings in accordance with the judgment of the Federal Court and otherwise according to law."

The relevant rules are Federal Court Rules 33, 34 and 35, published as P.U.(A) 33 on February 7, 1980. These three rules read:

"33. (1) Where in any proceedings in any High Court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution the Judge hearing such proceedings may make an order on such terms as may be just staying such proceedings to await the decision of such question by the Federal Court.

(2) An order staying proceedings under this Rule may be made by the Judge of his own motion or on the application of any party and shall be made at such stage of the proceedings as the Judge may consider most suitable having regard to the decision of such questions of fact as may be necessary to be settled to assist the Federal Court in deciding the question which has arisen and to the speedy and economical final disposal of the proceedings.

34. (1) Where an order for stay o