Withdraw criminal charges against whistleblower Sofia Rini Buyong

It is shocking and questionable that Sofia Rini Buyong, who may be considered a ‘whistleblower’ or a person who highlighted allegations of wrongs or crimes (a human rights defender), has been charged with criminal defamation under section 500 of the Penal Code.

Contravention of the Whistleblower Protection Act

One must note that this action by the state may be in contravention of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, where the preamble states:

An Act to combat corruption and other wrongdoings by encouraging and facilitating disclosures of improper conduct in the public and private sector, to protect persons making those disclosures from detrimental action, to provide for the matters disclosed to be investigated and dealt with and to provide for other matters connected therewith.

Section 7(1) of the act states:

(1) A whistleblower shall, upon receipt of the disclosure of improper conduct by any enforcement agency under section 6, be conferred with whistleblower protection under this Act as follows:

(a) protection of confidential information;

(b) immunity from civil and criminal action; and

(c) protection against detrimental action,

and for the purpose of paragraph (c), the protection shall be extended to any person related to or associated with the whistleblower.

It is important to note section 7(2) which says:

(2) A whistleblower protection conferred under this section is not limited or affected in the event that the disclosure of improper conduct does not lead to any disciplinary action or prosecution of the person against whom the disclosure of improper conduct has been made.

Even if found baseless, a whistleblower is still protected

As such, Sofia Rini Buyong, who ought to be considered a whistleblower, certainly should never be charged for criminal defamation by the state.

Even if Farhash Wafa Salvador, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Azam Baki (former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief), former senior political secretary to the prime minister Shamsul Iskandar Akin, or any others believed her statement was false and defamatory, and sued her in a civil action, Sofia would still be protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Such a civil action too must be struck out.

A whistleblower ought to be protected even if what was highlighted was found to be baseless, or ultimately did not lead to any prosecution or disciplinary action. In this case, Sofia has already been made a prosecution witness in Anwar’s former political secretary’s case.

Is it a state Slapp action against one who dares raise allegation against PM and ‘friends’?

Sofia Rini’s video clips reveal possible alleged wrongdoings or crimes of ‘powerful people’, and was this charging for criminal defamation a state Slapp (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) action?

Malaysia must never use draconian Slapp actions, and in fact must enact anti-Slapp laws. The Whistleblower Protection Act may be the first anti-Slapp law, but it is still far from adequate.

Why is criminal defamation only about what she said about Farhash?

As reported by the media, what seems odd is why her criminal defamation charge related only to Farhash and not Anwar, Azam or the others. Would that mean that what she said about Anwar, Azam and others is true, and thus is that the reason why her criminal defamation charge was restricted only to Farhash based on media reports?

As reported in the media, video clips of a conversation between Sofia Rini and one Albert Tei have been surfacing for some time now. They contain all kinds of allegations of wrongdoings by several people, including Anwar Ibrahim and others. Some of the ‘allegations’ in media report are as follows:

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has brushed off allegations that his former aide Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak was instructed to steal money and stash them in Africa. – Malaysiakini, 24 April 2026

Since Nov 25 last year, several clips from the same meeting between Tei and Sofia have been released, in which she agreed with Tei’s claim that he had showered Shamsul with RM630,000 worth of gifts and cash. She also named Anwar and MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki as being complicit in a plan to secretly record more than a dozen Sabah ruling politicians admitting to receiving bribes in exchange for mineral licences. In another instalment of the clip, she was heard saying that it was Anwar who instructed Shamsul to issue a support letter in 2024 recommending six contractors for a government hospital project. – Malaysia Now, 22 April 2026

It must be noted that Sofia Rini has been made a prosecution witness in the criminal case involving former senior political secretary to the prime minister Shamsul Iskandar Akin, and consistent with the Whistleblower Protection Act she was not charged in that case.

In Malaysia, no one will be charged for a crime until the prosecution is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to prove at least prima facie guilt of the accused – otherwise, it is wrong.

Even if only some of what Sofia Rini revealed is true, she is still protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act

Thus, an ordinary person would conclude that some of what Sofia Rini said was true, and it had rightly led to an investigation that ended with the charging of Shamsul Iskandar for a crime.

Thus, if a whistleblower reveals information, some of which may be true and others not, should she be charged with the crime of criminal defamation now?

Note that Section 7(2) provides protection even if “the disclosure of improper conduct does not lead to any disciplinary action or prosecution of the person against whom the disclosure of improper conduct has been made”.

Selective criminal action by the state?

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) takes the position that it is best that no one be charged for criminal defamation by the state, and it is best that individuals who believe that they are defamed take civil action against the alleged defamer. Should criminal defamation be repealed?

Despite lodging police reports of defamation, most never get charged for the crime of criminal defamation – and the norm has been that the defamed would have to take civil action, if they want to get justice.

Thus, the question that arises is why Sofia Rini has now been charged with this crime, where the alleged victim is merely a lay person, Farhash – who happened to be a former aide of the current Prime Minister Anwar?

Policy of no retaliation against those who allege wrongdoings by the state, ministers or public officers

Madpet takes the position that when there are alleged, possibly ‘defamatory’, statements about the prime minister, ministers or public officers, the appropriate response is clarification by the said members of the administration, public officers or the state.

It is best that all allegations of wrongdoings, crimes or misconduct against the state, its institutions, the prime minister, members of the administration or public officers be investigated independently first by the relevant law enforcement bodies and/or the prosecution.

There should not be any perceived acts of retaliation by the state, as in this criminal defamation charge against Sofia.

Attorney general-public prosecutor should discontinue criminal proceedings

As such, Madpet calls on the attorney general-public prosecutor to immediately discontinue this criminal proceeding against Sofia Rini, which would lead to an immediate discharge not amounting to an acquittal, which will also be consistent with the spirit of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Attorney general-public prosecutor should disclose what is being investigated – section 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code

As Sofia Rini’s video recording also revealed other allegations against other people, including Anwar, Madpet calls on Public Prosecutor Dusuki Mokhtar to report to the Malaysian public on status of all related investigations: which investigations are still proceeding, and which investigations have been accorded ‘no further action’ status – meaning that investigations are temporarily halted until further evidence emerges later.

Note that sometimes the prosecution does not charge yet – because there is still not enough evidence to be able to charge in court. It is in no way a finding of innocence.

Madpet calls on the relevant Malaysian law enforcement agencies and the prosecution to investigate all allegations raised, even if it is about the sitting prime minister.

Noting that since then, Shamsul Akin (now former political secretary of Prime Minister) has been charged, where Sofia Rini is listed as a prosecution witness, all the other allegations must be investigated too.

In the meantime, Madpet calls on Public Prosecutor Dusuki to inform Malaysians transparently, as to what investigations have been commenced and the status of all such investigations. Have there been any investigations classified as ‘no further action’? Have Anwar and those implicated already given their statements to the authorities, which is the norm in most investigations?

Remember that in Malaysia, section 107A(1) states:

Any person who has given information under section 107 may request for a report on the status of the investigation of the offence complained of in his information from the officer in charge of a police station where he gave the information.

And if the police fail to provide information within two weeks, one can report to the public prosecutor. Section 107A(6) states:

(6) The Public Prosecutor shall cause to be furnished to the informant, or direct the Officer in charge of the Police District to furnish to the informant, a status report containing such information as may be directed by the Public Prosecutor.

Consistent with the principle in section 107(A), Madpet urges the public prosecutor to disclose the status of all relevant investigations, in the name of transparency and accountability, as this is also a matter of public interest as it also involves the prime minister.

If the people are now informed that no investigations were commenced on the allegations of wrongdoings or crimes of certain persons like Anwar, Farhash or any others, then people may want to take needed steps including the lodging of new police reports, campaigning for investigations or even raising the matter in Parliament.

No repeat of what happened when Najib was PM

Many people are still angry that when Najib Razak was the Prime Minister, law enforcement and even the then public prosecutor-attorney general failed to speedily investigate and prosecute Najib for crimes involving 1MDB and SRC – for which Najib today finally stands convicted and sentenced.

This must not be repeated, and if anyone, including the prime minister or even the king, is accused of a crime or wrongdoing, law enforcement must investigate speedily, without fear or favour, and the public prosecutor must charge them in court.

There must be no more selective non-investigation, selective non-prosecution or selective treatment for anyone.

Investigate allegations, not those who highlighted them

Of late, there seems to be a disturbing trend whereby whistleblowers and those who allege crimes or wrongdoings involving the prime minister, ministers, government agencies or commissions, or certain public officers get investigated for crimes like defamation. Meanwhile, the question of whether the allegations made were even independently and professionally investigated remains unanswered.

Madpet reiterates its call for the public prosecutor-attorney general to immediately discontinue the case against Sofia Rini Buyong leading to a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

The spirit and the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act must be complied with.

Moreover, Sofia’s revelations have led to the charging of Anwar’s former political secretary, where Sofia is also now a material prosecution witness.

Madpet also reiterates its call for the enactment of anti-Slapps laws. In this case, the criminal charge against Sofia could sadly be perceived as a possible state Slapp action, one that inadvertently revealed alleged wrongdoings or crimes. – Madpet

Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: