PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today allowed the appeals by Badrul Hisham Shaharin, also known as Chegu Bard, to quash the gag orders preventing him from making statements on his ongoing sedition cases.
A three-judge panel comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin ruled in favour of Badrul Hisham on the grounds that there was merit in the appeal.
Justice Ahmad Zaidi, in a unanimous decision, said the appellant had appealed against the decisions of the Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru High Courts in allowing the review application for the gag order.
He said that in today’s proceedings, the appellant’s lawyer contended that the two High Court judges had erred in issuing a ‘gag order’ against the appellant and cited the Papagomo case, in which the Court of Appeal overturned a similar gag order imposed by the High Court.
“The facts of both cases are essentially the same, and as such, this court is bound by the precedent set in the Papagomo case. Furthermore, the court finds that the respondent (public prosecutor) failed to demonstrate any risk of jeopardising a fair trial. Therefore, the appellant’s appeal is allowed,” he said.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court issued the gag order against Badrul Hisham from making statements or commenting on his case on May 14 last year, while the Johor Baru High Court made the same order on May 20.
On April 29 last year, Badrul Hisham, 46, claimed trial at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on a charge of publishing seditious remarks on his Facebook page at 12.15 pm in Taman Bukit Cheras on April 6.
The charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, punishable under Subsection 4(1) of the same act, provides a RM5,000 maximum fine or a jail term not more than three years or both upon conviction.
He was also charged with uttering defamatory remarks believed to tarnish the good name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The offence was committed at the Office of the Comptroller of Royal Household, Istana Negara, at 6pm on Jan 22 the same year.
The charge under Section 500 of the Penal Code carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both upon conviction.
On April 30 of the same year, Badrul Hisham pleaded not guilty at the Johor Baru Sessions Court to publishing seditious material about a casino project in Forest City.
He was accused of committing the act via his Facebook account at Mutiara Villa in Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur, at 6.30 pm on April 26.
Earlier, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, representing Badrul Hisyam, argued that the court should allow his client’s appeal on the basis that no formal application had been submitted by the prosecution to request a gag order.
He pointed out that the application was made merely through a letter, without any supporting affidavit.
“There was no formal application or affidavit filed by the prosecution to justify the gag order. Both the Sessions Courts in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru had ruled that a gag order was unnecessary before the prosecution sought a review in the High Court,” said Muhammad Rafique, who referred to the Papagomo case decision, where a similar gag order was set aside.
Meanwhile, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Siew Wee, in acknowledging that no formal application had been filed, argued that the request for a gag order was closely linked to the nature of the charges facing the appellant, which involved the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
“The purpose of the gag order is to prevent any remarks that could disrupt public order or foster negative perceptions and prejudice against the highest institution in the country. It is not intended to infringe on the appellant’s freedom of speech, but to stop him from making public comments specifically about the ongoing charges,” said Ng.
