1. Defamation claim by a former minister against an influencer over a social media post alleging unpaid debt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 5778
MAHKAMAH TINGGI (KUALA LUMPUR)
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
Abdul Kadir bin Hj Sheikh Fadzir – Plaintiff
Versus
Aliff Syukri bin Kamaruzaman – Defendant
GUAMAN SIVIL NO WA-23CY-24–09 TAHUN 2023
Advocates:
Ravichandran Selliah (Dheenish Thevandran dan Chua Zhuo Ling bersamanya) (S Ravichandran & Anuar) bagi pihak plaintif. Mohd Tajuddin bin Abd Razak (Zulfahami bin Abu Bakar dan Shah Nurul Afzan bt Abdullah) (Hasshahari & Partners) bagi pihak defendan.
Ravichandran Selliah (Dheenish Thevandran dan Chua Zhuo Ling bersamanya) (S Ravichandran & Anuar) bagi pihak plaintif. Mohd Tajuddin bin Abd Razak (Zulfahami bin Abu Bakar dan Shah Nurul Afzan bt Abdullah) (Hasshahari & Partners) bagi pihak defendan.
Recovery of a debt is not a valid justification for publishing defamatory statements on social media. Parties must utilize established legal channels for debt collection; using social media to defame a debtor for payment renders the publisher liable for libel regardless of the intent to recover funds.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Sections 7, 8, and 9 - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 114A - Libel - Burden of proof in defamation: plaintiff must show (1) the words are defamatory, (2) the words refer to the plaintiff, and (3) the words were published (Paras 14, 15) - Test for defamatory nature: whether the statement has a tendency to excite the adverse opinion of others or lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Para 16).
(B) Defense of Justification - Use of social media to recover debts - Lack of intention to defame does not constitute a defense of justification where legal channels for debt recovery are available - It is inappropriate to allow defamatory statements as a means to recover debts, as this would undermine legal processes and social harmony (Paras 25, 27).
(C) Assessment of Damages - Damages in defamation are not intended to enrich the plaintiff but to vindicate reputation - Factors for assessment include the plaintiff's standing in society, the extent of publication and dissemination, resulting distress and mental anguish, and the conduct of the defendant from the time of publication until judgment (Paras 32, 33, 36).
Facts of the case:
A former high-ranking political figure (plaintiff) filed a claim for libel against a social media influencer (defendant) who published statements on social media platforms demanding the payment of a debt. The statements portrayed the plaintiff as a fraud and dishonest, causing the public to have a biased view of him. The defendant contended that the publications were made to recover a debt after repeated failed attempts to contact the plaintiff via telephone and messages.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the statements were defamatory as they lowered the plaintiff's reputation and integrity in the eyes of the public. The defendant's claim that the posts were made solely to recover money did not constitute a valid defense of justification. The requested damages of RM70 million were deemed excessive and not reflective of the actual purpose of damages under defamation law.
Issues: Whether the social media statements were defamatory and whether the intention to recover a debt justifies the publication of defamatory content on social media.
Ratio Decidendi: Debts should be recovered through established legal channels; the use of defamatory statements on social media to pressure a debtor for payment is not a valid legal justification for libel and cannot be considered by the court as a mitigating defense.
Result: Judgment for the plaintiff; damages of RM250,000 awarded, accompanied by an injunction against further publication, a mandatory injunction to remove the libel, a written undertaking and unconditional apology, and costs of RM50,000.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff argued the post was defamatory; defendant argued it was a lawful attempt to recover a debt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The post lowered the plaintiff in public estimation, implying he was dishonest and a cheat, harming his reputation. (Para 20 , 21 , 26 )
4. A defamatory publication made to recover a debt, without using legal channels, constitutes libel and is not justified. (Para 25 , 27 )
5. Judgment for plaintiff with damages, injunctions, an apology order, and costs granted. (Para 37 )
6. What are the elements a plaintiff must prove in a defamation action?
The plaintiff must prove the words are defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and were published to a third party. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What is the test for determining whether a statement is defamatory?
A statement is defamatory if it tends to excite adverse opinion or lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Does a defendant's lack of intent to defame provide a defense to a libel claim?
No, a lack of intent to defame does not constitute a defense when the published words are inherently defamatory. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
9. What factors are considered when assessing damages in a defamation case?
Factors include the plaintiff's standing, extent of publication, mental distress, defendant's conduct, and absence of apology. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 )
10. Are legal channels for debt recovery a defense against a defamation claim?
No, a party must use legal channels for debt recovery; publishing defamatory statements to pressure payment is not a defense. (Para 25 , 27 )
Roslan Mat Nor H
:PENDAHULUAN
[1]Maruah dan nama baik seseorang adalah sesuatu yang amat berharga. la tidak boleh dinilai dengan wang ringgit atau harta. Pada masa yang sama seseorang yang mempunyai hak untuk dituntut tidak boleh dihalang daripada mengemukakan tuntutannya daripada pihak yang terhutang haknya. Kesantunan dan kesopanan pihak-pihak di dalam menzahirkan hak dan nama baik amat diperlukan bagi memastikan ketenteraman dan kesentosaan masyarakat. la akan membolehkan hokum ditegakkan, maruah individu dipertahan dan kebertanggungjawaban undang-undang dizahirkan.
[2]Plaintif adalah seorang ahli politik tanah air yang telah terlibat di dalam arena politik begitu lama. Dia pernah dilantik menganggotai Kabinet Persekutuan. Dia juga pernah memegang jawatan Menteri di beberapa portfolio sebelum bersara dan terlibat di dalam bidang perniagaan. Plaintif masih terlibat di dalam aktiviti parti sosial sehingga kini.
[3]Defendan adalah merupakan seorang pempengaruh dan terkenal. Dia mempunyai pengikut jutaan orang. Dia adalah seorang yang terlibat di dalam bidang perniagaan melalui media sosial. Dia adalah seorang peniaga dan pempengaruh yang berjaya.
ASAS TINDAKAN PLAINTIF
[4]Plaintif mengemukakan tuntutan disebabkan satu pernyataan yang dikatakan dibuat oleh defendan seperti berikut:
... Siapa kenal tan sri ni??minta dia suruh bayar duit sy yg berpuluh juta itu.. dia mesti kaya sbb bekas menteri ... sy tak nak cerita perkara sebenar ... nanti malu satu family tan sri keturunan tan sri jadi saya sabar sabarrr sahaja ... org langkawi mesti kenal saya minta tolonglah kalau posting ni dilihat oleh anak dia, ke saudara dia ke tan sri ni dah tua ...
Siapa kenal dia sila komen di bawah siapa pernah terkena dgn tan sri ni sila komen di bawah
Sumber: Instagram @ aliffsyukriterlajaklaris pada 2 Julai 2023 dan Facebook @ Aliff Syukri Terlajak Laris pada 2 Julai 2023.
[5]Ekoran daripada kenyataan tersebut menurut plaintif ia telah menyebabkan orang yang mengenalinya dan masyarakat keseluruhan mempunyai pandangan serong terhadap plaintif. Kenyataan plaintif itu telah menyebabkan plaintif dilihat sebagai seorang penipu, perasuah dan tidak berkemampuan membayar hutang.
[6]Defendan di dalam keterangan di mahkamah tidak menafikan secara lisan bahawa pernyataan tersebut diterbitkan olehnya. Defendan menyatakan adapun pernyataan tersebut dibuat bagi memperolehi kembali hutang yang dikatakan perlu dijelaskan oleh plaintif kepada defendan. Defendan telah berkali-kali menghubungi plaintif melalui panggilan telefon tetapi tidak berjawab. Ini telah menyebabkan defendan perlu menerbitkan pernyataan tersebut dengan maksud plaintif akan menghubungi defendan.
[7]Plaintif di dalam keterangannya di mahkamah menyatakan dia tidak berhutang dengan defendan. Ini adalah disebabkan defendan telah membuat pelaburan di dalam syarikat di mana plaintif telah menguruskan jaminan persendirian. Hutang tersebut tidak melibatkan plaintif secara persendirian tetapi adalah atas syarikat.
[8]Mahkamah ini perlu berhati-hati dalam kes ini agar tidak tersasar di dalam pertikaian plaintif dan defendan sama ada terlibat di dalam atau hutang. la bukan menjadi kausa tindakan dalam kes ini. Kes ini melibatkan tuntutan fitnah. Mahkamah dalam kes ini perlu meneliti sama ada kenyataan tersebut adalah fitnah.
ANALISA
[9]Prinsip yang jelas berkenaan penelitian mahkamah bagi suatu tindakan fitnah secara terang dan nyata dijelaskan oleh para leluhur undang-undang melalui autoriti-autoriti yang masyhur dan telah termaklum. Berdasarkan kepada panduan di dalam duluan-duluan kehakiman tersebut ia menjadi penunjuk jalan untuk mahkamah ini menganalisa keterangan pihak-pihak dan memutuskan tindakan ini dengan sewajarnya.
[10]Sekiranya disingkap tirai sejarah undang-undang fitnah di bawah undang-undang lazim (common law), adalah didapati ia bermula daripada perlembagaan yang digubal oleh Council of Oxford pada tahun 1222. la berdasarkan kepada (Canons of the 1215 Fourth Lateran Council), la adalah satu dokumen yang
