The High Court has ordered activist Chegu Bard and an influencer to pay RM550,000 in damages to businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak for defamatory statements.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court awarded RM550,000 in damages to businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak today.
Judicial Commissioner Arziah Mohamed Apandi allowed his defamation suit against activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin, known as Chegu Bard, and influencer Nurpais Ismail.
The court awarded RM300,000 in general damages, RM150,000 in aggravated damages and RM100,000 in exemplary damages.
Both defendants were also ordered to pay costs of RM40,000 to the plaintiff.
In her decision, Arziah said the court found the published statements were defamatory, serious, damaging and actionable.
She said the narrative portrayed Farhash as achieving success through political connections rather than merit.
It also depicted him as manipulating political processes for personal gain and embodying corruption.
“The attack on the plaintiff’s character was intended to portray him as dishonest, unethical and undeserving of his positions of public trust,” she said.
Arziah stated these allegations would lower him in public estimation and harm his reputation.
“The statements accused the plaintiff of corruption, cronyism, manipulation of democratic processes and abuse of power,” she added.
She noted these are among the most serious allegations that can be made against a public figure.
The judge said the defamatory statements clearly and unambiguously referred to the plaintiff.
Badrul Hisham explicitly named Farhash numerous times throughout a recorded interview.
He also provided specific identifying details, including his role as the Prime Minister’s political secretary.
The statements referred to Farhash’s alleged involvement in PKR’s internal party elections and disputes.
Arziah said the first defendant knew the interview would be broadcast to a wide audience.
She found the second defendant’s role as publisher was comparable, as he operated the platform and conducted the interview.
Nurpais had full control over whether to publish the defamatory content.
“His conduct was merely aggressive publication,” Arziah said.
She noted he actively participated by asking questions designed to elicit defamatory responses.
His questions and framing encouraged and facilitated the first defendant’s defamatory statements.
The second defendant then added a sensational title to maximise viewership, aggravating the harm.
Arziah said his motivation for the publication appeared to be commercial gain.
He deliberately exploited the plaintiff’s reputation and the allegations for his own purposes.
Neither defendant took steps to remove the video after receiving a letter of demand.
“This continued publication after notice demonstrates a deliberate choice to persist in defamation,” she said.
Arziah found publication was clearly established against both defendants.
She said the statements caused serious damage to Farhash’s personal, political, professional and commercial reputation.
The damage is ongoing and potentially permanent in the digital age.
“Online content persists indefinitely and can be discovered by anyone searching for the plaintiff’s name,” she stated.
This creates a continuous cloud of doubt over his reputation in his personal and professional life.
Arziah concluded the statements caused serious, substantial and continuing damage.
Counsel Nurin Husnina Hussein appeared for Farhash during the proceedings.
Farhash filed the lawsuit on 26 May 2025.
Neither defendant appeared in court or filed a defence despite proper service of the writ.
Farhash was the sole witness at the trial earlier this month.
The suit alleged Badrul Hisham made defamatory statements during an interview on 7 May 2025.
The interview was uploaded to Nurpais’s YouTube account.
The statements implied the plaintiff used his position to control and manipulate large companies.
