Chegubard ordered to enter defence over defamatory statements

 

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today ordered activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin to enter his defence on a charge of issuing defamatory statements that could damage the good name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar.

Judge Noor Ruwena Nurdin ruled this after allowing the prosecution's appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, which acquitted and discharged Badrul, 48, also known as Chegubard, at the end of the prosecution’s case.

"After hearing the submissions of the parties and examining the appeal record, the court is satisfied that there is credible evidence that the statements made by the respondent (Badrul) are untrue and fall under defamation.

"Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the respondent. The court orders this case to be returned to the Sessions Court and the same judge for the respondent to defend himself on the charge," the judge said.

ADS

On April 29, 2024, Badrul was alleged to have issued a defamatory statement, with reason to believe that the defamatory statement would damage the good name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The offence was allegedly committed at the Office of the Royal Household Comptroller, Istana Negara at 6pm, Jan 22, 2024, under Section 500 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum jail sentence of two years or a fine or both.

On Nov 4 last year, Sessions Court judge Norma Ismail acquitted and discharged the former Port Dickson Bersatu chief of the charge after finding that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against him.

‘Meeting did not happen’

Ruwena, in her judgment, said the palace’s royal household comptroller had instructed the first prosecution witness, Istana Negara press relations officer Husni Yusop, to file a police report because there was no consent from Sultan Ibrahim for a meeting with several representatives from Perikatan Nasional.

"Prima facie of the case is a credible testimony. The Sessions Court judge did not state that the first witness' testimony was not credible... but what is important is the testimony from the first witness, who is a palace representative.

"This witness' testimony cannot be stated as unreliable because he explained that, in fact, (the meeting) did not happen; as such it is slanderous. If the meeting is consented, the police report must be withdrawn," she said.

In this regard, Ruwena said the High Court could intervene if there were errors in terms of facts and law by the Sessions Court judge.

"At this stage, the burden of proof in terms of evidence has shifted to the accused to present a reasonable explanation to reject the prosecution's case," she said.

She said the court hearing the defence would later have to assess whether the explanation presented by the accused was credible and reasonable to the point of casting doubt on the prosecution's case.

- Bernama