Media Statement – 15/7/2026
AG Must Immediately Withdraw Criminal Charges Against Sofia Rini Buyong (Whistleblower And/or Human Rights Defender) And Grant DNAA, consistent with Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 and an Anti-SLAPP position
Any and all allegations of wrongdoing/crimes, even against Prime Minister, must be investigated, and STOP targeting those who highlight/expose. The one who highlights NO obligation to PROVE – that is duty of Law Enforcement/Prosecution
It is shocking and questionable that Sofia Rini Buyong, who may be considered a ‘whistleblower’ or a person who highlighted allegations of wrongs/crimes (a Human Rights Defender), has been charged for criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Penal Code. (NST, 15/7/2026)
Contravention with Whistleblower Protection Act 2010
One must note that this action by the State maybe 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 Whistle Blower Still Protected
As such, Sofia Rini Buyong, who ought to be considered ‘whistle blower’, certainly should not or never be charged for criminal defamation by the State.
Even, if Farhash Wafa Salvador, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Azam Baki(former MACC Chief), former senior political secretary to the prime minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, or any others believe that her statement was false and defamatory, sued her in civil action, Sofia would be still protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010. Such Civil Action too MUST be struck out.
A whistleblower ought to have been 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 Dare Raise Allegation Against PM And ‘Friends’?
Sofia Rini’s video clips reveal possible alleged wrongdoings and/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 2010 maybe the first anti-SLAPP law, but it is still far from adequate.
Why Criminal Defamation ONLY about what she said about Farhash?
As reported by the media, what seems ODD was why was her criminal defamation only related to Farhash, and NOT Anwar Ibrahim, Azam Baki or the others? Would that mean that what she said about Anwar Ibrahim, Azam Baki and others are true, and thus was that the reason why her criminal defamation charge was restricted only about Farhash based on media reports?
As reported in the media, video Clips of conversation between Sofia Rini and one Albert Tei has been surfacing for some time now, and it contains all kinds of allegations of wrongdoings by several persons including Prime Minister 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, 24/4/2026)
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, 22/4/2026)
It must be noted that said Sofia Rini has been made a prosecution witness in the criminal case involving former senior political secretary to the prime minister Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, and consistent with the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 she was not charged in that case? In Malaysia, no one will be charged for a crime UNTIL 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 Sofi Revealed TRUE, Still Protected Under Whistleblower Protection Act
Thus, an ordinary person would conclude that some of what Sofia Rini said was TRUE, and it had rightly led to investigation that ended with the charging of Shamsul Iskandar for a crime.
THUS, if a whistleblower reveals, some which maybe TRUE and others not – should she be charged for a crime of criminal defamation now? Note, that Section 7(2) provides protection even if ‘…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…’
Selective Criminal Action by State?
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) take the position that it best that NO one be charged for criminal defamation by the State, and it best that individuals who believe that they are defamed takes a civil action against 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 actions, 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 Ibrahim?
Policy of NO RETALIATION against those who allege wrongdoings of State/Ministers/Public Officers
MADPET is of the position when the alleged, possibly ‘defamatory’, statements about the Prime Minister, Ministers or public officers, then the appropriate response is clarification by the said members of administration, Public Officers and/or the State.
It is BEST that all allegations of wrongdoings, crimes or misconduct against the State, its Institutions, the Prime Minister, Members of 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 State, as in this a criminal defamation against Sofia.
AG/PP Discontinue Criminal Proceeding - DNAA
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 (DNAA), which will also be consistent with the spirit of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.
AG/PP Disclose What Is Being Investigated, Status - Section 107A CPC
As Sofia Rini’s video recording also revealed other allegations against other persons including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, MADPET calls on Public Prosecutor Dusuki to report to the Malaysian Public as to the status of all related investigations.
Which investigations are still proceedings, and which investigations have been accorded ‘NFA’(No Further Action) status – meaning that investigations temporarily halted until further evidence emerges later.
NOTE that sometimes 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. There may be some evidence, but just NOT ENOUGH.
MADPET calls on the relevant Malaysian Law Enforcement 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 PM Anwar) has been charged, where Sofia Rini is listed as prosecution witness, all the other allegations must be investigated too – and 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. Has there been any investigations been classified as NFA(No Further Action)? Has PM Anwar Ibrahim and persons implicated already given their statement to the authorities, which is the norm in most investigations?
Remember, that in Malaysia, Section 107A(1) 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 fails to provide information within 2 weeks, one can report to the Public Prosecutor, and 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 also is a matter of public interest as it also involves the Prime Minister.
If Malaysians are now informed that no investigations were commenced on the allegations of wrongdoings or crimes of certain persons like Anwar Ibrahim, Farhash or any others, then people may want to take needed steps including the lodging new police reports, campaigning for investigations or even raising the matter in Parliament.
No Repeat of what happened when Najib was PM
Malaysians are still angry at the fact that when Najib Razak (former Prime Minister) was then Prime Minister, that law enforcement and even then Public Prosecutor/Attorney General failed to speedily investigate and prosecute Najib for crimes involving 1MDB/SRC – for which Najib today finally stands convicted and sentenced. This must NOT repeat, and if anyone, including the Prime Minister or even the King, is alleged of a crime or wrongdoing, law enforcement must speedily without fear or favour investigate, 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
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 and/or Commissions, and/or certain Public Officers get investigated for crimes like defamation, etc. whilst the question of whether the allegations made were even independently and professionally investigated remain 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 2010 must be complied. More so, that Sofi’s revelations has led to the charging of Anwar’s former Political Secretary, where Sofi is also now a material prosecution witness.
MADPET also reiterates for the enactment of anti-SLAPP law. In this case, the criminal charge against Sofi could sadly be perceived as a possible State SLAPP action one that inadvertently revealed alleged wrongdoings or crimes.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW – JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Sofia Rini charged with defaming businessman Farhash
KUALA LUMPUR: A 50-year-old woman pleaded not guilty at the magistrate's court today to a charge of defaming businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak.
Sofia Rini Buyong was accused of making defamatory remarks against Farhash in a video, knowing or having reason to believe that the statements would harm his reputation at 6.30pm on Apr 26.
She entered her plea after the charge was read before magistrate Nurul Izzah Hasan Basri.
"I claim trial," she said calmly, shaking her head.
The charge, framed under Section 500 of the Penal Code, carries a maximum two years' jail, a fine, or both upon conviction.
The prosecution was led by state prosecution director Datuk Nordin Ismail, assisted by deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Fadhly Mohd Zamry.
Fadhly asked the court to set bail at RM15,000 with one surety.
However, defence lawyer Shugan Raman sought a lower bail of RM500, arguing that his client is bankrupt, unemployed and poses no flight risk.
"She is currently on Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission bail of RM10,000, and all her available funds are tied up there.
"The amount proposed by the prosecution is beyond her financial means. It is excessively high and would effectively prevent her from posting bail.
"Bail should not be punitive but should serve only to ensure her attendance in court," he said.
He said she came to court voluntarily today to face the charge and has cooperated fully throughout the investigation.
Shugan also told the court that his client suffers from hypertension and diabetes and is supporting her son.
In reply, Fadhly maintained that the prosecution's proposed bail was reasonable given the nature of the charge.
"If the bail amount is too low, the risk of her absconding would be higher," he said.
After hearing submissions from both parties, Nurul Izzah set bail at RM7,000 with one surety and fixed Aug 28 for mention.
Outside the courtroom, Shugan said he was unsure whether his client's son, who intended to stand as her surety, would be able to raise the money to post bail.
"The amount is still beyond the family's financial means," he said. - NST, 15/7/2026
Clip surfaces of prosecution witness in Shamsul graft trial making explosive claims against Anwar, Farhash
It is part of a video secretly recorded by businessman Albert Tei last year.
A new video, believed to be an extract from a secretly recorded conversation at the centre of last year's corruption scandal involving the Prime Minister's Office, has surfaced on social media platforms, containing damning allegations by a woman identified as a proxy to the prime minister's former aide, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin.
In the 49-second clip, Sofia Rini Buyong, who has since been named as a key prosecution witness in Shamsul's upcoming corruption trial, makes startling claims against both Anwar Ibrahim and his former political secretary turned multi-millionaire businessman, Farhash Wafa Salvador.
The allegations were made during her meeting with prominent whistleblower Albert Tei, who recorded their conversation without Sofia's knowledge.
The video has also been shared by PAS information chief Ahmad Fadhli Shaari, who demanded a response from the individuals mentioned in the clip.
"This is a very serious matter. I hope the allegation is not true," he said.
When contacted, Tei confirmed to MalaysiaNow that the clip was part of the video he recorded on Nov 21 last year.
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.
On Nov 25, Shamsul resigned as Anwar's political secretary, on the same day the first clip surfaced. Meanwhile, Sofia has denied everything she was heard agreeing with Tei about in the video.
Three days later, masked MACC officers dramatically arrested Tei after breaking into his home in Puchong.
Tei and Shamsul were later charged with four counts of giving and receiving RM176,829.03 in gratification, while Sofia was named a key witness.
Tei first came to prominence in late 2024 after he released more than a dozen secretly recorded video clips of Sabah ruling politicians admitting to him that they received money in exchange for mineral licences.
Tei claimed Shamsul requested to make the secret recordings. He said he had approached Shamsul, seeking his help to speak to Sabah Chief Minister Hajiji Noor to recover the money paid to several GRS assemblymen.
Tei claimed that while his money was never returned, he had spent almost RM630,000 on Shamsul. - Malaysia Now, 22/4/2026
KUALA LUMPUR (May 6): Businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador has categorically denied allegations that he stole and laundered billions of ringgit abroad, dismissing the claims as baseless, defamatory, and politically motivated.
He issued the denial in a media statement on Wednesday, in which he addressed reports published by online news portals on April 22, April 23, and May 5, regarding a video recording that allegedly contained a purported conversation between two individuals identified as Sofia Rini and businessman Albert Tei.
"The said reports have broadcasted and/or repeated extremely serious allegations against me, among them that I have stolen and laundered billions of ringgit abroad, to places including Türkiye and Africa, and supposedly that I am now a Turkish citizen.
"I firmly and unequivocally deny all these accusations. These claims are untrue, baseless, and defamatory in nature, clearly intended to tarnish my reputation and integrity, as well as to negatively impact my personal life and business affairs," Farhash said.
To rebut the allegations, Farhash said he is not a Turkish citizen, does not hold any bank accounts in Türkiye, and has never been involved in any theft or money laundering activities as alleged.
"I am merely a businessman and am not currently involved in the political arena. I have absolutely no idea why I am being dragged into this matter, except that these individuals have ulterior motives to gain political mileage," he said.
Police report and legal action
Viewing what he termed as the "malicious distribution" of the video seriously, Farhash said he has lodged a police report and handed the matter over to authorities for further investigations, including for criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
He has also instructed his lawyers to file legal action against those responsible for spreading the claims to protect his name and interests.
The video also reportedly implicated Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, a former political secretary to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who subsequently stepped down from his role to clear his name regarding alleged claims.
On May 5, Malaysiakini reported that Tei filed a police report urging authorities to open an investigation against Anwar and Farhash. - EDGE, 6/5/2026
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.
Suggesting that the media not entertain such accusations, he said the person making the allegation should come up with evidence.
"So many issues... don't think I need to respond to this one. If the person makes a claim, then he or she must provide proof.
"To entertain... why are you even entertaining this? If there are 1,000 people making such comments, do you expect me to respond to all?
"If the person has any proof, bring it. If not, it can be 'sarang fitnah' (nest of slander). I prefer not to entertain this, I have so much work already," Anwar told reporters in Johor Bahru.
The prime minister was attending a programme when asked to respond to a new video clip that surfaced recently.
The clip featured businessperson Sofia Rini Buyong speaking to another person, believed to be businessperson Albert Tei, where she claimed an individual named "Anwar" had told another individual called "Farhash" to steal money, which the latter then sent to Africa.
"If there is proof, show it. No one is above the law. But how come you’re entertaining some random 'makcik' (aunty) making such a comment?" Anwar added.
Following the surfacing of the video earlier this week, Malaysiakini has contacted Sofia, Farhash and the Prime Minister’s Office for comment.
ALSO READ: Farhash denies 'money stolen' claims in new clip, lodges report
Graft allegations
Sofia first made headlines last year over a video in which she discussed allegations of corruption involving Anwar’s former political secretary Shamsul Iskandar Akin, with Tei.
Following this, Shamsul resigned as Anwar's aide to defend himself against the allegations.
On Nov 25, 2025, Shamsul said on X that he was made to understand that there was an attempt to attack him with an issue that could ruin the government’s image.
The post followed Malaysiakini contacting him for comment over allegations that he received money from Tei in relation to the mining scandal.
Subsequently, Shamsul and Tei were charged in relation to the Sabah mining scandal, while the MACC classified Sofia as a prosecution witness. - Malaysiakini, 24/4/2026
