KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 — The High Court today found Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris, popularly known as Papagomo, liable for defamation and ordered him to pay RM280,000 in damages to former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng and his son.
Judge Roslan Mat Nor delivered the ruling after allowing the defamation claim filed by Lim and Clint Lim Way Chau against the defendant over the latter's posts alleging that Way Chau was detained in Singapore for purportedly bringing in RM2 million in undeclared cash in 2020.
"The court orders the defendant to pay global damages of RM200,000 and costs of RM30,000 to the first plaintiff (Guan Eng), as well as damages of RM80,000 and costs of RM10,000 to the second plaintiff (Way Chau)," he said.
Guan Eng and his son filed the suit on April 19, 2020, alleging that the defendant had posted defamatory statements on his Facebook page claiming that Way Chau was detained at Changi Airport on February 29, 2020, for bringing in RM2 million in undeclared cash.
He stated that the defendant, who uploaded the post under the name 'Papa Azri' on March 14, 2020, also claimed that Guan Eng had travelled to Singapore on February 29, 2020, after the alleged detention.
In his judgment, Judge Roslan said that after examining the witness testimony, the court found that Azri was indeed "Papa Azri" as appeared in the statements made on Facebook.
"The defendant operated the 'Papa Azri' fan page on Facebook, and there is no evidence to suggest the account was operated by anyone else," he said.
Judge Roslan added that the defendant's statements referred to both plaintiffs in connection with allegations regarding Way Chau's detention in Singapore.
"The court is satisfied that such statements created a public perception that the first plaintiff (Guan Eng) is an untrustworthy individual who attempted to condone his son's actions and tried to resolve his son's detention there (Singapore).
"Evidence from the authorities confirmed that the second plaintiff's alleged detention in Singapore did not occur, while the first plaintiff did not travel abroad at that time because his passport was held by the court due to criminal charges," he said.
As such, the court was satisfied that the information regarding the alleged detention did not originate with the defendant but was based on information he had read and reviewed from a third party.
"However, an individual who reposts defamatory statements bears the same responsibility as the party who initiated or wrote those statements. Therefore, a recipient of a statement that is ultimately found to be defamatory cannot claim the defence of justification.
"It is important that individuals who receive any statement whose truth cannot be verified do not recklessly repost it, as they will expose themselves to defamation action," Judge Roslan said, noting that the court rejected the defendant's defences of justification and fair comment.
Meanwhile, he said that although the plaintiffs and the defendant hold differing political views, the court must examine the evidence and law without being influenced by any political sentiments involving either party.
"The court must uphold the judicial system and not be swayed by any external consensus when making a decision. The most important thing is that the decision is made solely based on the evidence presented in court," Judge Roslan emphasised.
On the matter of damages, he said that if the amount awarded were too low, it could lead individuals to recklessly issue defamatory statements under the guise of freedom of speech, which is not the purpose of defamation law.
Today's proceedings were attended by lawyer Simon Murali, who represented both plaintiffs, while lawyers Logen Eskander Abdullah and Fazilah Jaafar represented Azri.
The suit was originally filed at the Penang High Court on April 19, 2020, before being transferred to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on March 23, 2021.
Judicial Commissioner Eddie Yeo Soon Chye, who presided over the trial in 2024, passed away in February 2025, before the case was taken over by Judge Roslan. Both parties agreed that the new judge would make a decision based on the existing trial notes.
After the proceedings, Logen told the media that his client would soon file an appeal against today's decision with the Court of Appeal.
