KUALA LUMPUR, June 24 — The High Court has ordered activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin to enter his defence on a charge of issuing defamatory statements that could damage the good name of His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, the King of Malaysia.
Judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin ruled this after allowing the prosecution's appeal against the Sessions Court's decision, 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 Hisham) 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," she said.
On April 29, 2024, Badrul was alleged to have issued a defamatory statement, with reason to believe it would damage the King's good name.
The offence was allegedly committed at the Office of the Royal Household Controller, Istana Negara, at 6pm on January 22, 2024, under Section 500 of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum jail sentence of two years or a fine or both, if convicted.
On November 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.
In her judgment, Judge Ruwena said the Royal Household Comptroller of Istana Negara had instructed the first prosecution witness (SP1), Istana Negara press relations officer Mohd 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 SP1's testimony was not credible...but what is important is the testimony from SP1, who is a palace representative.
"This witness's 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 If the meeting is consented, the police report must be withdrawn," she said.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, Judge Ruwena said the High Court could intervene if the Sessions Court judge made errors of fact or law.
"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.
The court hearing the defence case would later have to assess whether the explanation presented by the accused was credible and reasonable enough to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
