Failing To Give Police Five Days' Notice Of A Rally Stopped Being A Crime On 1 July 2025.

On 1 July 2025, the Federal Court struck down section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.

What that provision did: it made it an offence for an organiser to fail to give police five days' notice before an assembly, punishable by a fine of up to RM10,000.

What the Federal Court held, per Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, delivering a unanimous five-judge decision on her final day in office:

"We find that subsection 9(5) is not validly enacted under Article 10(2)(b) and it cannot be deemed as validly restricting the right guaranteed to all citizens by Article 10(2)(b). Subsection 9(5), therefore, violates the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b) and must be struck down as null and void under Article 4(1)."

The reasoning: s.9(5) amounted to a prohibition rather than a restriction, was a disproportionate incursion on the right, was unfair to organisers, and had no genuine connection to public safety.

The critical distinction, and the one most coverage gets wrong:

The notice requirement under s.9(1) still stands. The criminal penalty for missing it does not.

As one commentator put it: "the requirement is still there, for good reason, but non-compliance will not invite criminal sanction."

The case that got there

Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi, co-founder and former secretary-general of MUDA, organised a peaceful rally in central Kuala Lumpur on 14 August 2022 to protest the government's award of a defence contract — the littoral combat ship (LCS) project.

The rally was attended by around 60 people and proceeded without incident.

Twelve days later he was charged under s.9(1), punishable under s.9(5), for failing to notify Dang Wangi District Police five days in advance. He pleaded not guilty on 26 August 2022.

Reported as Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807. The case was remitted to the High Court for disposal.

A decade of judicial conflict, now resolved

That decade of uncertainty is why older articles on this topic contradict each other. Anything written between 2015 and mid-2025 will describe s.9(5) as valid.

What the law still requires

Section 9(1) notice remains valid for regulatory purposes. The Court was explicit that notice requirements under s.9(1) remain valid, while criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties.

The PAA 2012 removed the requirement for prior police permits — that was its original reform. Notification is not permission.

Police powers are unaffected. The Federal Court expressly pointed out that police retain powers under the Penal Code to take action if a rally becomes unruly, unlawful, or stops being peaceful.

Note also s.21A, which enables police to compound a s.9(5) offence — payment instead of prosecution. The Court observed that even so, it remained up to the authorities whether to charge an organiser, which was part of the problem.

Why this matters for spontaneous assemblies

The practical significance is timing.

Commentary notes that assemblies "often reflective of immediate public sentiment or rapid developments" now enjoy stronger constitutional protection — and that democratic participation sometimes requires immediacy, so the law must not impose barriers that effectively silence legitimate public expression.

A five-day notice requirement backed by criminal liability made spontaneous protest impossible. The Court of Appeal in 2014 had identified the same conceptual difficulty: s.9(5) treated peaceful assemblies as lawful regardless of compliance with notice — so it criminalised failure to notify about something fundamentally lawful.

What to actually do if you are organising

This is not legal advice on any particular assembly. Take advice if the event is significant.

1. Give the s.9(1) notice anyway. The requirement remains valid, notification helps police manage traffic and safety, and it removes an argument. Missing it is no longer a crime, but that is not a reason to skip it.
2. Notification is not a permit. The PAA removed the permit requirement.
3. Keep it peaceful. The Penal Code powers are untouched, and protection attaches to peaceful assembly.
4. Know the restricted places and prohibited categories under the PAA — the Act contains restrictions on assemblies at or near certain locations that this article does not detail.
5. Note who counts as an organiser. Liability under the Act attaches to organisers specifically.
6. Children and non-citizens are subject to particular provisions under the PAA.
7. If police attend, be co-operative and record names and numbers. Your arrest rights are unchanged — see (The CPC Sections That Actually Govern Your Arrest: s.23, s.28, s.28A, s.117, s.112 and s.387).
8. If you are charged, get a lawyer. Bar Council Legal Aid Centres: malaysianbar.org.my.

What the ruling does not do

It does not repeal the Peaceful Assembly Act. Only s.9(5) was struck down. Amir was only challenging s.9(5), and the Federal Court noted that.

It does not create an unlimited right. Article 10(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably, and Article 10(2)(b) permits Parliament to impose restrictions it considers necessary for security or public order. What the Court held is that a law is not valid merely because it was made for an Article 10(2) reason — it must also be fair, genuinely connected to public security, and must not turn a procedural requirement into a prohibition.

Other laws still apply. Sedition, s.233 CMA and public order offences operate independently of the PAA — see (Every Government Since 2012 Has Promised To Repeal The Sedition Act. Cases Rose 84% In 2025.).