SHAH ALAM, May 19 — A housewife who was previously granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for posting offensive comments on Facebook against His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, the King of Malaysia, was charged again at the Sessions Court today for the same offence.
The fresh charge follows a Federal Court ruling that the words "offensive" and "annoy" in the relevant law are valid and constitutional. Suhaila Abd Halim, 40, pleaded not guilty after the charge was read out to her once more.
She is accused of knowingly making and posting offensive comments against the King with the intent to annoy others. The comments were seen at 8.30am on January 5, 2025, at the Sungai Buloh Hospital.
The mother of six was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, which is punishable by a fine of up to RM50,000, or imprisonment for up to one year, or both, as well as a further fine of RM1,000 for each day the offence persists after conviction.
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Deputy Public Prosecutor Fadhli Ab Wahab and prosecuting officer Mohamad Azmir Mohd Razali appeared for the prosecution, while the accused was represented by lawyer Rushilan Gunalan.
Fadhli proposed bail of RM10,000 with one surety, while Rushilan requested a lower amount, arguing that his client is from the B40 income group and still has a breastfeeding child.
Judge Nor Hasniah Ab Razak allowed Suhaila to be released on bail of RM7,000 with one surety, ordering her to report to the nearest MCMC office once a month until the case is resolved. The court then set July 17 for further mention.
On July 7 last year, she pleaded not guilty to the charge at the Shah Alam Sessions Court. However, she was granted a DNAA on September 17, following a Court of Appeal ruling that had declared the words "offensive" and "annoy" in Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA 1998 unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeal had struck down those words after allowing an appeal by activist Heidy Quah to set aside a High Court decision that had dismissed her suit in 2023.
But on February 6 this year, the Federal Court reversed that position, ruling that the words "offensive" and "annoy" are valid and consistent with the Constitution. This reversal led to the accused being charged again today.
