While the Na­tion­al Trade Union Cen­tre (NATUC) be­lieves the Gov­ern­ment should re­peal the Sedi­tion Act, for­mer mu­ti­neer Raf­fique Shah be­lieves it is still nec­es­sary to main­tain so­cial or­der.
How­ev­er, Shah, the for­mer po­lit­i­cal leader of the Unit­ed Labour Front, says leg­is­la­tors should re­view the act to en­sure it does not re­strict free speech.

Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Stu­art Young on Thurs­day said the act re­mains on the law­books and he was hap­py to have a po­lice ser­vice that en­forces the law. How­ev­er, Young said a re­view of the act was not on Gov­ern­ment’s agen­da.

“The Sedi­tion Act, as I un­der­stand, is ar­cha­ic, mean­ing com­ing from as far back, I heard some­body say as far back as 1920. Clear­ly, it must be se­vere­ly out­dat­ed and maybe even ir­rel­e­vant to so­ci­ety to­day, 100 years lat­er,” Shah told Guardian Me­dia Thurs­day.

“I do be­lieve, how­ev­er, that pro­vi­sions must be made in the law. Maybe there are such laws for peo­ple who are in­cit­ing racial, re­li­gious and oth­er types of strifes and un­rests be­tween and among groups in so­ci­ety that could be detri­men­tal to the de­vel­op­ment of uni­ty in a coun­try that is so frac­tured.”
He added, “Yes I think there is a place for laws gov­ern­ing some of the of­fences that form part of the orig­i­nal sedi­tion law, but clear­ly, we don’t need ar­cha­ic leg­is­la­tion that will in­fringe on the free­dom of speech that we have fought so hard for.”

In 1920, the for­mer British colo­nial gov­ern­ment im­ple­ment­ed the act as a mean of con­trol­ling dis­sent­ing voic­es. 
Shah agreed that the Sedi­tion Act was a po­lit­i­cal tool cre­at­ed by the British, which they used to charge for­mer trade union icon Tubal Uri­ah “Buzz” But­ler in 1937. But­ler was tried and freed but spent two years in prison for in­cit­ing a ri­ot.

Shah him­self fought gov­ern­ment con­trol in 1970 when, to­geth­er with Lt Rex, led a mutiny to pre­vent the Dr Er­ic Williams Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment gov­ern­ment from us­ing mil­i­tary force against the mass­es dur­ing the 1970 Black Pow­er Move­ment’s ri­ots. He and oth­er mu­ti­neers were jailed but were even­tu­al­ly freed.

Ja­maat al-Mus­limeen leader Yasin Abu-Bakr was charged with sedi­tion in 2005 for com­ments he made dur­ing a ser­mon. How­ev­er, that mat­ter was even­tu­al­ly dis­missed. 
Sanatan Dhar­ma Ma­ha Sab­ha Gen­er­al Sec­re­tary Sat Ma­haraj is al­so un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion by po­lice for sedi­tion. He is now chal­leng­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the law in the High Court.
Shah yes­ter­day said this chal­lenge may bring clar­i­fi­ca­tion on the law and may sug­gest what should be done with it.
“I don’t see any harm in chal­leng­ing the law. Maybe some­thing will come out of the chal­lenge, caus­ing an up­date of the law to make it more rel­e­vant,” he said.

“There must be a con­cern. In oth­er words, we can­not just wild­ly and ir­re­spon­si­bly make state­ments that will cause strife. I am all for up­grad­ing and up­dat­ing the law to make it more rel­e­vant to to­day’s world but at the same times with re­spon­si­bil­i­ty.”