/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2022/01/86a3e9b51f738dd4d3c47e747ad81fcf.jpg)
Papagomo freed of sedition charge over Facebook remarks
The Klang Sessions Court today acquitted blogger Wan Azri Wan Deris, better known as Papagomo, of a sedition charge over remarks allegedly made on Facebook three years ago.
His lawyer, Rafique Rashid Ali, said judge Siti Aminah Ghazali delivered the decision at the conclusion of the defence case.
“The court noted...
The Klang Sessions Court today acquitted blogger Wan Azri Wan Deris, better known as Papagomo, of a sedition charge over remarks allegedly made on Facebook three years ago.
His lawyer, Rafique Rashid Ali, said judge Siti Aminah Ghazali delivered the decision at the conclusion of the defence case.
“The court noted that the defence had successfully raised a reasonable doubt, while the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he told Bernama when contacted today.
He said only Wan Azri, 43, testified for the defence, while deputy public prosecutor Mustaffa P Kunyalam prosecuted.
On July 31 this year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered Wan Azri to enter his defence after allowing the prosecution’s appeal against an earlier Sessions Court decision acquitting him.
On Sept 3 last year, Siti Aminah acquitted and discharged the blogger, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against him. However, the High Court subsequently overturned that decision and ordered him to enter his defence.
On Jan 8, 2024, Wan Azri pleaded not guilty to a charge of making seditious remarks on Facebook by allegedly claiming that the government was pro-Israel and pro-Western.
He was accused of making the remarks on the Facebook page of Halid Hamidi, also known as Halid Mat Kool, which an individual at a condominium unit in Jalan Tong Shin, Bukit Bintang, viewed at 1pm on Nov 8, 2023.
The charge was framed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, which provides for a maximum jail term of three years, a fine of RM5,000, or both.
- Bernama
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/10/d50410e060c8f8383cdecd62356c0688.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/07/bfdbe42a6a4528e08359471391f7ce33.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/07/39d81f6ca1553af12fa631198b32cb59.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/01/0c29a829215c1676e554bbf6f100263a.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/01/eb697a5208a5b42e6c6d5ac77b74a57f.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/07/78ec1bb9ea6001616cee341b2b5906ff.jpg)
To prosecute speech as sedition is to accept the heaviest evidential burden in law: proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is a gamble. Recast the same impugned speech as defamation in tort -- libel or slander -- and the inquiry becomes one of preponderance of evidence. You no longer need to eliminate doubt; you need only tip the scales.
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.