The Sessions Court in Butterworth today found former PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu not guilty of an alleged defamatory remark about the communist attack on the Bukit Kepong police station in 1950.

Mohamad, who is widely referred to as Mat Sabu, was accused of making the remark in a ceramah in Tasek Gelugor in August 2011.

He also faces an alternative charge of having defamed three policemen - Marine Police Constable Abu Bakar Daud and police constables Jaafar Hassan and Yusoff Rono - and their families at the same time, date and place.

Mat Sabu was charged under Section 500 of the Penal Code, which provides for a jail sentence of up to two years or a fine, or both, upon conviction.

Sessions judge Meor Sulaiman Ahmad Tarmizi said the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

Mat Sabu, 60, attended court today with his counsel Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, who is also the MP for Sepang.

He had been charged with defaming the policemen and their families, who had defended themselves in the Bukit Kepong police station incident.

He was charged with doing so in a speech at Pusat Asuhan Tadika Islam (Pasti) Al Fahmi, Markas Tarbiyah PAS Padang Menora in Tasek Gelugor, Seberang Perai, on Aug 21, 2011.

Outside the courtroom, Mat Sabu thanked his lawyers and supporters for seeing him through the case, which has spanned over four years.

"I am thankful that I am free from all these allegations," he said.

Hanipa said the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against his client.

"We hope the prosecution will not appeal, although it is their right to do so," Hanipa said to laughter from the small crowd gathered in support of Mat Sabu.

"It is better the prosecution now focuses on the 1MDB scandal," he joked.

Earlier, in closing his argument in court, Hanipa said the prosecution's charge against Mat Sabu was "defective".

"To charge someone with defamation against a deceased person or persons, the prosecution needs to fulfil certain requirements, which they failed to do," he said.

"Also Mat Sabu's remarks were a historical interpretation of events, which our witness, veteran historian Khoo Kay Kim said was open to many versions," he added.