Johor bahru: A housewife who had previously received a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for posting offensive comments on Facebook against the King, His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, was charged again today at the Sessions Court here with the same offence.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, the fresh charge comes in the wake of a Federal Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of the words "offensive" and "annoy" in the relevant law. Suhaila Abd Halim, 40, once again pleaded not guilty when the charge was read to her.
Suhaila is accused of knowingly making and posting offensive comments aimed at the King with the intent to annoy others. These comments were reportedly seen at 8.30 am on January 5, 2025, at Sungai Buloh Hospital.
The charge was filed under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998. This section stipulates penalties that may include a fine of up to RM50,000, or imprisonment for up to one year, or both, in addition to a further fine of RM1,000 for each day the offence continues post-conviction.
Representing the prosecution, Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) deputy public prosecutor Fadhli Ab Wahab and prosecuting officer Mohamad Azmir Mohd Razali were present, while Suhaila was defended by lawyer Rushilan Gunalan.
Fadhli suggested a bail amount of RM10,000 with one surety, but Rushilan requested a reduction, citing Suhaila's status as part of the B40 income group and her responsibilities towards a breastfeeding child.
Judge Nor Hasniah Ab Razak consented to a bail of RM7,000 with one surety, and instructed Suhaila to report monthly to the nearest MCMC office until the matter is settled. The court scheduled further mention of the case for July 17.
Previously, on July 7 of last year, Suhaila had pleaded not guilty to the charge in the Shah Alam Sessions Court. She was granted a DNAA on September 17, 2025, following a Court of Appeal verdict that ruled the words "offensive" and "annoy" in Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA 1998 were unconstitutional.
This stance was the result of the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold an appeal by activist Heidy Quah, which reversed a 2023 High Court ruling. However, on February 6 this year, the Federal Court reinstated the validity of these terms, prompting Suhaila's recharging today.