Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok has won her defamation suit against UMNO Youth chief Datuk Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh, with the Melaka High Court ordering him to pay RM300,000 in damages and legal costs over remarks made during a dispute concerning halal certification in 2024.

Judicial Commissioner Datuk Isa Aziz Ibrahim on Monday (Oct 19) awarded Kok RM250,000 in general and aggravated damages, alongside RM50,000 in legal costs.

The court also ordered Akmal to remove the disputed statements from all his social media platforms within seven days and issued an injunction restraining him from making or publishing further defamatory statements against Kok.

According to reports, the court found that Akmal’s statements were defamatory and that his defences of fair comment and qualified privilege had not been established.

Following the ruling, Kok welcomed the decision, describing it as an important step towards protecting her reputation and holding individuals accountable for defamatory publications.

She also stressed that public discourse, including debates on matters of public interest, must be conducted responsibly, adding that freedom of expression does not exempt individuals from the legal consequences of defamation.

Akmal’s lawyer indicated that he would first seek instructions from his client before determining the next course of action.

From halal certification debate to defamation suit

The lawsuit stemmed from a disagreement in September 2024 over a government proposal to make halal certification compulsory for restaurants and food businesses that do not serve pork or alcohol.

Kok had questioned the proposal, warning that the requirement could place additional burdens on businesses, particularly smaller operators, and potentially affect Malaysia’s international image.

Her remarks prompted a response from Akmal, who criticised the DAP leader in a social media video and used derogatory language against her, including calling her an “old nyonya”. He also suggested that a non-halal label be placed on her forehead.

Kok subsequently issued a letter of demand seeking RM25 million in damages and demanding that Akmal retract his remarks and apologise.

Akmal responded that he would face her in court, and Kok filed the defamation suit in October 2024.

The case centred on statements that Kok argued had portrayed her as ignorant of halal certification, opposed to Islamic practices and a threat to national harmony.

The court’s decision brings the dispute to a significant legal milestone, although Akmal’s legal team has indicated that further steps remain under consideration.

Political criticism and its legal limits

The case also raises a broader question about the boundaries of political debate.

Public officials and elected representatives must be able to scrutinise government policies, challenge proposals and disagree openly, particularly when decisions could affect businesses and the wider public. The original halal certification debate was precisely the kind of policy discussion that warranted scrutiny.

However, criticism of a policy is different from making personal allegations about the individual raising concerns. Political disagreement does not automatically justify statements that damage another person's reputation, and the court's findings in this case underline the legal consequences that can follow.

For politicians, the distinction matters because public debate should ultimately help people understand policies and their implications, rather than allow personal attacks to overshadow the issues at stake.

The ruling does not mean politicians are prohibited from criticising one another. Instead, it highlights the need to distinguish legitimate political expression from statements that cross the legal boundaries of defamation.