THE Kuala Lumpur High Court has rejected an application by Bersatu Youth chief for Selangor Na’im Brundage to obtain leave for a judicial review over the blocking of two TikTok accounts, ruling that the decision was made by TikTok and not the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).
Judge Norliza Othman allowed the preliminary objections raised by Communications Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Fahmi Mohamed Fadzil, MCMC, the Government and two other respondents, finding that MCMC had only notified TikTok of alleged violations of its community guidelines.
The other respondents were MCMC Network Security Chief Datuk Dr Mohamed Sulaiman Sultan Suhaibuddeen and the MCMC chairman.
In delivering her decision, Norliza said a letter from Na’im to MCMC dated March 23, 2024 showed that he was aware his accounts had been blocked and had sought an explanation from TikTok but received no response.
She said Na’im suspected the action had been influenced or directly enforced by MCMC.
However, the respondents maintained that MCMC had only taken administrative action by notifying TikTok of alleged violations of its community guidelines, following which TikTok blocked the accounts.
The court found that the administrative action by MCMC was not a decision amenable to judicial review.
“The application for judicial review filed by the applicant on the assumption that MCMC had directed TikTok to ban or censor the applicant’s accounts cannot succeed in judicial review.
“Although the threshold for leave to commence judicial review is much lower, if it can be shown that the applicant is unable to establish an arguable case at the substantive stage, the application should be dismissed.
“Clearly, it was TikTok that censored and blocked Na’im’s accounts, and not MCMC,” she said.
Norliza said MCMC had merely carried out administrative action by issuing a letter to TikTok and that such action was not ordinarily subject to judicial review under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Na’im discovered in 2023 that two of his TikTok accounts had been blocked before filing the judicial review application against the five respondents on June 24, 2024.
He sought a certiorari order to quash the decision to block both accounts.
In his supporting affidavit, Na’im said the two social media accounts were platforms through which he expressed his views and opinions on current issues.
The respondents subsequently filed preliminary objections against his application for leave to commence judicial review.
Na’im was represented by lawyer Latheefa Koya, while MCMC was represented by A Ruebankumar. Ahmad Fahmi and the Government were represented by Federal Senior Counsel Ainna Sherina Saipolamin.
Latheefa later told reporters that her client would appeal the decision.
Ruebankumar said the court’s decision meant Na’im’s application for leave to commence judicial review had been dismissed. - September 22, 2026
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
