KUALA LUMPUR - The High Court here today awarded RM550,000 in damages to businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak after allowing his suit against activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin, also known as Chegu Bard, and influencer Nurpais Ismail.
Judicial Commissioner (JC) Arziah Mohamed Apandi awarded RM300,000 in general damages, RM150,000 in aggravated damages and RM100,000 in exemplary damages. The court also ordered both defendants to pay the costs of RM40,000 to the plaintiff.
In her decision, Arziah said the court found that the statements were defamatory of the plaintiff and that the defamatory meanings were serious, damaging and actionable.
She said the narrative put forward by the first defendant (Badrul Hisham) portrayed the plaintiff as someone who achieved success, including in the split matter, through political connections rather than merit, who manipulated political processes for personal gain, and who embodied corruption and ego in politics.
"The attack on the plaintiff’s character was intended to portray him as dishonest, unethical and undeserving of his positions of public trust. These allegations clearly tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, expose him to hatred, ridicule and condemnation, and harm his business, professional and personal reputation.
"The statements accused the plaintiff of corruption, cronyism, manipulation of democratic processes and abuse of power, which are among the most serious allegations that can be made against a public figure in any society,” she said.
Arziah said the defamatory statements clearly and unambiguously referred to the plaintiff, as the first defendant explicitly named him numerous times throughout the interview, using the widely known name, Farhash.
"The first defendant left no room for ambiguity by providing specific identifying details, including the plaintiff’s role as Prime Minister’s political secretary and his position as former PKR Perak state leader.
"The statements also referred to the plaintiff’s alleged involvement in PKR’s internal party elections and the disputes he had with professional associates,” she said.
JC Arziah said the first defendant made the defamatory statements during a recorded interview, knowing that it would be broadcast to a wide audience, and that the second defendant’s role in this publication was comparable, as the operator of the platform and the individual who conducted the interview.
"The second defendant (Nurpais) had full control over whether to publish the defamatory content. His conduct was merely aggressive publication. He actively participated in the interview by asking questions designed to elicit defamatory responses. His questions, framing and follow-up comments encouraged and facilitated the first defendant's defamatory statements.
"The second defendant then compounded this by adding a sensational title designed to maximise the tension and viewership, thereby aggravating the harm caused by the publication. The second defendant's motivation for this publication appears to be commercial gain.
"He deliberately exploited the plaintiff’s reputation and the nature of the allegations to serve his own commercial purposes, showing complete disregard for the harm inflicted on the plaintiff. Despite receiving the plaintiff’s letter of demand on 12 May 2025, neither defendant took any steps to remove the video or mitigate the harm. This continued publication after notice demonstrates a deliberate choice to persist in defamation.
"I therefore find that the publication is clearly and comprehensively established against both defendants, with the first defendant as the originator of the defamatory statements and the second defendant as the publisher who disseminated those statements to a wide audience through his YouTube platform,” she said.
Arziah said the defamatory statements have caused serious and substantial damage to the plaintiff’s reputation across multiple aspects of his life - personal, political, professional, and commercial.
"The damage to the plaintiff’s reputation 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. Business partners, investors, and acquaintances may encounter the defamatory material and form negative impressions of the plaintiff without realising that the allegations are false and unsubstantiated.
"This creates a continuous cloud of doubt over the plaintiff’s reputation that may follow him throughout his personal and professional life. I therefore find that the defamatory statements have caused serious, substantial, and continuing damage to the plaintiff’s reputation in all aspects of his life. Given his corporate position and the nature of the allegations, there is a clear potential for commercial harm,” she added.
During the proceedings today, counsel Nurin Husnina Hussein appeared for Farhash.
Farhash filed the lawsuit against the defendants on 26 May 2025; however, despite proper service of the writ, neither defendant appeared in court nor filed a statement of defence. Farhash was the only person to give evidence at the trial on Jan 12 this year.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on the allegation that the first defendant had made and published defamatory statements against him during an interview conducted by the second defendant on May 7, 2025, which was uploaded to the second defendant’s YouTube account.
The defamatory statements, among other things, implied that the plaintiff used his position to control and manipulate large companies. - BERNAMA