It’s worth noting High Court’s decision to award RM550,000 in damages to businessman Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak in his defamation suit against political activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin, better known as Chegubard.

This is a sharp rebuke to reckless political sensationalism masquerading as activism.

Judicial Commissioner Arziah Mohamed Apandi ruled that the statements made by Badrul in a podcast last year were serious, damaging and actionable.

The court found that the remarks falsely portrayed Farhash as corrupt, manipulative and unfit for his professional and political roles.

Badrul was identified as the source of the allegations, while the second defendant published and amplified them with sensational titles. Neither defendant appeared in court to defend their claims.

This case fits a longer pattern involving Badrul. A three-time election loser, he was sacked by PKR in 2016 for damaging the party’s image after repeatedly acting against party discipline and issuing public statements without authorisation.

The decision was meant to rein in conduct that the party viewed as reckless and harmful.

In April 2024, Badrul (now a Bersatu member) was remanded by police over allegations linked to public statements he made, once again placing him under investigation for conduct related to speech and publication.

In a separate matter, he was investigated under the Sedition Act and later released on police bail in 2025, following claims that his remarks could threaten public order.

Despite these repeated encounters with the law, Badrul has continued to announce fresh exposés and accusations, often through social media and alternative platforms, presenting himself as a crusader against corruption.

However, many of these claims have either failed to withstand scrutiny or resulted in police reports and court action.

There is a clear difference between responsible whistleblowing and public accusations made without care.

Badrul’s history suggests a tendency to make serious claims first and address consequences later.

The Farhash verdict shows that such behaviour can cause real harm and carries real legal risks.

The courts have been consistent in drawing the line. Umno leader Jamal Md Yunos was ordered to pay RM300,000 in damages to DAP MP Teresa Kok after making false allegations against her, a case that later required enforcement proceedings when payment was not made.

In another ruling, PAS MP Siti Mastura Muhammad was ordered to pay damages after falsely claiming that DAP leaders were related to the late communist leader Chin Peng. The court found the statements to be untrue and defamatory.

Together, these cases reinforce a basic principle. Political speech is not a free pass to damage reputations. The right to question those in power comes with a responsibility to be accurate and fair.

Badrul’s latest defeat in court should serve as a reminder that repeated controversy does not equal credibility.

When activism relies on unverified claims and public stunts, it undermines public trust and distracts from genuine efforts to hold wrongdoers to account.