KUALA LUMPUR: The Alor Setar High Court on Monday (March 16) allowed Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail to enter a default judgment against a social media user in his defamation lawsuit.
Lawyer Datuk SN Nair, representing the plaintiff, said judge John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee made the ruling on Dec 8, 2025, following the plaintiff's application supported by an affidavit dated Nov 14, 2025.
"We confirm that the High Court has granted a default judgment in favour of Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail against defendant Muhamad Zubair Ismail, which was sealed by the court on March 14, 2026," he said in a statement on Monday.
Nair said that the court, after reviewing the application and his submissions and noting the absence of Muhamad Zubair, had allowed the plaintiff to enter a default judgment against the defendant.
He added that the court had ruled the defendant liable in connection with the defamatory publication challenged by Saifuddin Nasution.
"The matter will now proceed to the assessment of damages stage, where the court will determine the appropriate amount of general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages to be awarded to the plaintiff," he said.
Nair said the default judgment affirmed the principle that individuals who spread defamatory statements online cannot avoid legal responsibility by failing to participate in court proceedings.
"Saifuddin Nasution initiated this action to protect his reputation and uphold the rule of law, and will continue to pursue this matter until the court determines the amount of damages to be paid," the lawyer said.
Saifuddin Nasution, who filed the suit on April 11, 2025, claimed that the defendant had uploaded several posts, including photos, videos and statements, which directly referred to him on his Facebook and TikTok accounts on March 26 and 27, 2025.
According to the plaintiff, the posts suggested that he was shielding criminals or particular individuals for political or personal advantage and had misused his ministerial position for personal gain.
He claimed that the defendant's conduct resulted in the plaintiff being targeted with insulting, abusive, and publicly disparaging statements, thereby harming his reputation, good name, and position. - Bernama
