The Supreme Court of Singapore on Tuesday convicted an activist and an opposition politician under the country’s new Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016, finding the Facebook remarks they made critical of Singapore’s judiciary to constitute contempt by scandalizing court.

The Administration of Justice Act makes it illegal to commit the crime of “contempt by scandalising (sic) court,” which is defined as:

Any person who scandalises (sic) the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that —(i) imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any court; and (ii) poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.

Jolovan Wham, an outspoken government critic, was charged after claiming that Malaysian judges were “more independent than Singapore’s for cases with political implication” in April. John Tan, a politician in the Singapore Democratic Party, defended Wham in May and was subsequently charged with the same offense.

Justice Woo Bih Lih, who delivered the judgment of the court, held that the posts “made a bare statement impugning the integrity and impartiality of Singapore’s judges without providing any basis for the statement … [which] posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.” As such, Woo wrote that the posts were “not made in good faith, and did not constitute fair criticism of a court.”

The case has been adjourned for sentencing. Under the Administration of Justice Act, the conviction of contempt carries a maximum punishment of a USD $100,000 fine and three years jail time.