Preacher gets nine months in jail for seditious comments against ...

PUTRAJAYA (Sept 25): The Court of Appeal (COA) has reinstated a nine-month jail sentence against independent preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin for his seditious comments involving the Sultan of Selangor, made more than ten years ago.

In a unanimous decision on Monday, a three-member panel led by COA judge Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail said that the preacher's appeal has no merit but reduced the jail sentence meted out by the High Court in 2019.

"The appeal is dismissed. The conviction is safe. The one-year jail sentence by the High Court is set aside and replaced with a nine-month sentence (reinstating the Sessions court decision)," she said.

This is Wan Ji's final appeal and his nine-month jail sentence will begin on Monday.

Appellate court judge Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin were the others on the bench.

Wan Ji, former aide to DAP chief Lim Guan Eng, was appealing his conviction and sentence where the Shah Alam High Court in July 2019, meted out a one-year jail sentence for making seditious remarks against the Sultan of Selangor in a Facebook post in 2012.

Earlier in April 2018, the Sessions Court found Wan Ji guilty and had imposed a nine-month imprisonment.

Wan Ji was charged in 2014 under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, which carries a maximum jail term of three years, as well as a maximum fine of RM5,000.

In delivering the decision, Hadhariah said that having the freedom of speech does not mean one could speak as one pleases.

"The words said in [the] Facebook [posting] were not appropriate," she said.

She added that even if one was learned in matters of religion, they should not belittle others.

"Even if you are smart, a genius, you still have to be humble. If you want to give religious advice, say it politely. Then people will listen, people will appreciate it. Don't use words that are not appropriate against the Sultan of Selangor," she said.

She added that people should be careful with the 3R issues (race, religion and royalty) and that freedom of speech is not absolute and has its limits.

In response to Wan Ji's counsel Faiz Fadzil's argument during submissions that the Sedition Act 1948 was not constitutional as it was a pre-Merdeka law, the panel said that the Act was constitutional as decided in previous cases by the apex court.  

Deputy public prosecutor How May Ling represented the respondents on Monday.