KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak has been awarded RM550,000 in damages in his defamation suit against Port Dickson Bersatu chief Badrul Hisham Shaharin and YouTube channel owner Nurpais Ismail over a video last year.
Judicial Commissioner (JC) Arziah Mohamed Apandi ordered Badrul Hisham or better known as Chegubard and Nurpais to pay Farhash RM300,000 in general damages, RM150,000 in aggravated damages and RM100,000 in exemplary damages.
She also ordered both defendants to pay RM40,000 in costs.
Farhash, 44, was absent from yesterday’s proceedings. He was represented by lawyer Nurin Husnina Hussein. Badrul Hisham, 48, and Nurpais, 46, did not enter an appearance in the case.
In her decision, JC Arziah said the statements made by Badrul Hisham against Farhash were serious and defamatory while Nurpais, who published the recorded interview with a sensational title on his channel, encouraged the damaging statements for commercial gain.
The JC said Badrul Hisham was aware that his remarks were not made in a private conversation and would be broadcast to a wide audience through Nurpais’ editorial control and quest for viewership.
The court also found that despite receiving Farhash’s letter of demand in May last year, neither defendants took any steps to remove the video or mitigate the harm and this showed their persistence in defamation.
The JC said it was undeniable that the statements referred to Farhash as his name was repeatedly mentioned in the video and Badrul Hisham provided identifying details, including Farhash’s role as Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s former political secretary and former Perak PKR leader.
The decision was delivered after a day of full trial on Jan 12 where the plaintiff testified.
Farhash filed the suit in May 26 last year, claiming that Badrul Hisham had made and published defamatory statements against him during an interview conducted by Nurpais on May 7, 2025, which was then uploaded to his YouTube account.
The defamatory statements, among other things, implied that the plaintiff used his position to control and manipulate large companies, and that he was involved in corruption and misuse of political influence as well as improper dealings linked to government contracts.
