KUALA LUMPUR — The Court of Appeal has reduced the damages awarded to former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin from RM2.5 million to RM830,000 in his defamation suit against Mohd Rasyiq Mohd Alwi, also known as Ustaz Abu Syafiq, over social media posts linked to the Covid-19 vaccine.
A three-member bench led by Justice Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan upheld the High Court’s ruling on liability but revised the quantum of damages.
The court also ordered Khairy to pay RM50,000 in legal costs.
Sitting on the panel were Justices Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin and High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh.
The appellate court reduced general damages from RM2 million to RM500,000 and exemplary damages from RM250,000 to RM80,000, while maintaining RM250,000 in aggravated damages.
Delivering the judgment, Mohamed Zaini said the panel agreed that the defamatory statements were serious and suggested dishonesty, fraud, and falsification of vaccination records.
“The total sum of RM2.5 million in general damages is not consistent with current judicial trends.
“Therefore, we reduce the general damages to RM500,000,” he was quoted saying by NST.
The court acknowledged that damages may be awarded for each publication but stressed that the overall amount must reflect proportionality and prevailing legal standards.
On aggravated damages, the court found that the defamatory statements harmed Khairy’s reputation and risked undermining public confidence in vaccination efforts.
He added that damages may be increased when a defence of justification fails and noted that the apology offered appeared insincere.
The panel therefore upheld the High Court’s award of RM250,000 in aggravated damages.
The court agreed that exemplary damages were warranted but reduced the sum to RM80,000, emphasising their punitive nature and limited application.
“Exemplary damages are punitive in nature, and it has been established that such damages should only be awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances,” he said.
The court also highlighted the amplified reach of social media in modern defamation cases.
“We take judicial notice that the defamation landscape has fundamentally changed with the emergence of social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, which are no longer merely spaces for casual expression but powerful tools for instantaneous and widespread dissemination,” he said.
The bench stressed that individuals presenting themselves as religious authorities bear greater responsibility when making public statements.
“Because of this high level of trust, the appellant bears a greater, not lesser, responsibility to verify the accuracy of his statements before disseminating them to others,” Mohamed Zaini added.
Khairy filed the lawsuit on January 25, 2022, alleging that Mohd Rasyiq had defamed him through videos and images posted on the “Ustaz Abu Syafiq” Instagram account on October 20, 2021, and January 6 and 10, 2022.
The posts allegedly claimed that Khairy had lied about receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and booster dose and had falsified his vaccination status — assertions the courts found to be defamatory.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling affirms liability while signalling a recalibration of defamation awards in line with evolving judicial trends and the realities of the social media era. – February 19, 2026