Justice Roslan Mat Nor held that Wan Azri, also known as Papagomo, had defamed the duo in a Facebook post dated March 14, 2020, which claimed that Clint Lim had been detained while attempting to smuggle RM2 million into Singapore.

The post also alleged that Guan Eng went to the island republic on Feb 29, 2020 to rescue his son.

The court ordered Wan Azri to pay RM200,000 in damages to Guan Eng and RM80,000 to his son, along with costs of RM30,000 and RM10,000 respectively.

In his grounds of judgment, Roslan said that after examining the evidence adduced in court, he found that Wan Azri was behind the account which published the posts, adding that there was no evidence to suggest it was managed by any one else.

He also dismissed Wan Azri’s contention that the suit was politically motivated, saying such arguments were irrelevant to the proceedings.

“What is more important is that the court has to focus on the defamation issue and not be influenced by political issues or external influences. The decision must be based on the evidence adduced in this court,” he said.

The court rejected the defendant’s reliance on the defence of justification, in which Wan Azri argued that he did not originate the allegations but merely relied on third-party reports, particularly media reports concerning the duo.

“Can a person who republishes a posting on social media rely on the defence of justification merely because of the availability of social media platforms?

“In the court’s view, a person who republishes a post bears the same responsibility as the party who originated the publication.

“Therefore, such a person cannot simply escape liability. As such, it is important that individuals who receive statements whose truth cannot be verified do not republish them indiscriminately,” he said.

The court also noted the police’s confirmation that Clint had not been arrested, while Guan Eng’s passport had been retained by the court due to his criminal case.

In justifying the quantum of damages awarded to the duo, the judge said damages that were too low would encourage people to spread defamatory statements.

“It would encourage people to easily make defamatory statements while hiding behind the argument of ‘freedom of speech’. This is not the objective envisaged by defamation law,” he said.

Simon Murali represented the duo, while Logan Eskander Abdullah represented Wan Azri.