KUALA LUMPUR – The Court of Appeal today allowed Badrul Hisham Shaharin’s appeal to set aside gag orders barring him from commenting on his sedition cases.
A three-judge panel – justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin – ruled in favour of Badrul Hisham, better known as Chegubard, citing merit in the appeal.
Justice Ahmad Zaidi, delivering the unanimous decision, said Badrul Hisham had appealed against rulings by the Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru High Courts, which granted prosecution reviews resulting in gag orders, Bernama reported.
“In today’s proceedings, the appellant’s lawyer argued that both high court judges had erred in issuing a gag order,” said Ahmad Zaidi, adding that the lawyer referenced the Papagomo case, where the Court of Appeal overturned a similar order.
“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 the respondent (public prosecutor) failed to demonstrate any risk of jeopardising a fair trial. Therefore, the appellant’s appeal is allowed.”
The Kuala Lumpur High Court issued the gag order on May 14 last year, followed by a similar order from the Johor Bahru High Court on 20 May.
On 29 April 2024, Badrul Hisham, 46, claimed trial at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court to a charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 for allegedly posting seditious remarks on Facebook at 12.15pm in Taman Bukit Cheras on April 6. The offence carries a maximum fine of RM5,000 or up to three years’ jail, or both.
He also faces a defamation charge under Section 500 of the Penal Code, for allegedly tarnishing the image of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The offence was said to have occurred at the Office of the Comptroller of the Royal Household, Istana Negara, at 6pm on January 22. If convicted, he faces up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
On April 30, he pleaded not guilty in the Johor Bahru Sessions Court to publishing seditious content on Facebook regarding a casino project in Forest City. The offence allegedly took place at 6.30pm on April 26 at Mutiara Villa, Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur.
Earlier, his lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, argued that no formal application had been filed to justify the gag orders.
“There was no formal application or affidavit filed by the prosecution to justify the gag order,” he said. “Both Sessions Courts in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru ruled that a gag order was unnecessary before the prosecution sought a review in the high court.”
He again referred to the Papagomo case, where a similar order was overturned.
Deputy public prosecutor Ng Siew Wee, while acknowledging the lack of a formal application, argued that the request was justified given the sensitivity of the charges involving the monarchy.
“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,” she said. “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.” – April 24, 2025