In 2014, a three-judge panel of the second-highest court in the Malaysian judiciary, the
Court of Appeal, declared Section 9(5) of the law unconstitutional in a challenge to the law brought by
Selangor State Legislative Assembly deputy speaker
Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. Nik Nazmi was charged with organising an assembly without providing authorities 10 days notice prior to the event. He faced a fine of RM10,000 under Section 9(5), which provides for criminal punishment of assembly organisers who do not provide 10 days notice of an assembly to the authorities. Nik Nazmi appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously ruled that Section 9(5) of the law violated the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and acquitted Nik Nazmi. One of the three-judge bench, Justice Mah Weng Kwai, wrote in his opinion that Section 9(1), which requires the 10-day notice period, is also unconstitutional. The other two judges, Justices Mohd Ariff Mohd Yusof and Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, penned separate judgments declaring that only Section 9(5) was unconstitutional. Ariff wrote: "The Section 9(1) requirement of 10 days' notice under the PAA is constitutional, but Section 9(5) that punishes peaceful assembly is unconstitutional." Hamid's opinion was that "The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed under Article 10(1) (b) of the Federal Constitution and hence, it cannot be criminalised." Mah in his opinion called Section 9(5) a "mockery of the right to freedom of assembly." Another politician, Member of Parliament for
Ipoh Timor Thomas Su, was also charged under Section 9 of the act in 2013. After the ruling in Nik Nazmi's case, Su filed for dismissal of the charges, but received a dismissal not amounting to acquittal. Without a formal acquittal, he was subsequently charged again for the original offense in 2016. He then received an acquittal in 2018, when the Attorney General's Chambers withdrew the charges. According to Human Resources Minister
M. Kulasegaran, the
then recently elected Pakatan Harapan government had instructed the Attorney General to review Section 9(1) of the Act, which was the provision under which Su had been charged. Su's lead counsel
Ramkarpal Singh called Su's acquittal a positive step towards abolishing that provision, which he said "curtails freedom of speech." On 1 July 2025, a five-judge panel of the Federal Court invalidated section 9(5), calling it amounts to a prohibition and also a disproportionate incursion on freedom of assembly. ==Criticism==