Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo said today the High Court in Kuala Lumpur was wrong in granting an inter parte interim injunction against Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua last year in relation to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's defamation suit against him.
The High Court had on April 21 last year granted an ex parte injunction to Najib, who had sued Pua for defamation after a Facebook Live posting by Pua in relation to 1MDB
Justice Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab then granted the inter parte interim injunction on Aug 4 last year. Justice Abu Bakar Jais had granted the ex-parte injunction when the suit was initially filed by Najib in April.
Gobind told a three-member Court of Appeal bench led by Justice Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim that Pua, in his defence, had stated that he was justified in making a Facebook Live posting claiming the tabling of the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) in Parliament last April was to divert the attention from Najib and the 1MDB scandal.
The lawyer said Najib did not produce any reply to the US$20 million or the US$681 million (RM2.6 billion) he purportedly received, whereas Pua in his defence provided a detailed account of the transactions that were not rebutted.
Gobind said High Court judge Justice Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab had reversed the burden and applied wrong principles in granting the inter parte injunction on the Facebook Live posting.
"When Pua said there was collusion between Umno, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang and the Dewan Rakyat speaker in the tabling of the amendment to Act 355 by providing details in his defence, there was not much response from Najib.
"Hence, based on the defence made by Pua, the ex parte interim injunction on the Facebook Live posting should have been lifted and not an inter parte granted.
"The plaintiff (Najib) should have shown that such claims of him getting the monies were not true and the collusion was also not true when the inter parte injunction was made," said Gobind, who is also Puchong MP.
He also cited a Parliament session that Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia had presided over and when Act 355 was introduced for the second time.
He quoted Pandikar as saying: "... that a friend of mine from Sabah said if you have the power you should use it and if you do not use it, it shows you are stupid."
Why, Gobind (photo) asked, was it necessary for Pandikar to utter such a remark.
"Hence, it is clear that there is a misdirection by the High Court judge that requires appellate intervention (to lift the interim injunction)," said the lawyer.
Najib's lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun told the court that the prime minister had been cleared of all allegations of receiving money from 1MDB.
Hafarizam said the MACC had stated that the RM2.6 billion came as a donation from the Middle East and that the attorney-general had cleared Najib of any wrongdoing at a press conference on Jan 26, 2016.
"An in-depth investigation was done by the bi-partisan Public Accounts Committee, which cleared my client. I want the court to take cognisance of all three factors as these are all facts that should be considered under the Evidence Act," Hafarizam said.
The lawyer added that the PAC findings on 1MDB were also presented to the MPs.
Hafarizam said MPs were free to introduce their private member's bill and the speaker had the power to allow it to be tabled, with the PM or executive not intervening in such decisions.
"It is the sole power and prerogative of the Dewan Rakyat," he said.
Hafarizam also said the judge was right in granting the injunction as Pua's Facebook Live session had been viewed over a million times and he had more than 250,000 followers.
"The magnitude of the exposure has resulted in irreparable damage to the respondent (Najib)," Hafarizam claimed.
Gobind in his reply said the MACC did indeed say it was donation and while the AG also gave clearance, this was not pleaded in Najib's affidavit and copies of what was said were never submitted.
Furthermore, the PAC's report itself on 1MDB was never made public, nor were copies given to the MPs.
Justice Abang Iskandar then said they would adjourn to deliver a decision on Pua's appeal but after 45 minutes the bench, comprising Justice Zaleha Yusof and Justice Yaacob Sam, said they would have to deliberate the matter further and would inform all parties on when they would deliver their decision.
Najib in his suit had claimed that Pua's impugned words implied that he had conspired with PAS to split the Malay vote among the opposition and practised 'dirty politics' to remain in power.
He further complained that the words meant that he had robbed 1MDB of funds, would continue to commit criminal acts and steal from the people and that he had betrayed Malaysians.
Pua (above) in his defence cited the various questionable transactions made by 1MDB into Najib's accounts and denied that the words he uttered on this were defamatory.
He pleaded the defence of fair comment, qualified privilege and justification and that the comments were made in public interest.
Pua, who is PJ Utara MP, said what he meant in the Facebook Live session was that the people should not be distracted by the tabling of Act 355 and forget that Najib and his administration had exploited national resources for his own personal benefit and hence, he and his government ought to be removed in the coming general election.
Hearing for the defamation suit has been fixed for April 23. This is Najib's second defamation suit against Pua. In 2015, he sued Pua, also over comments linking the prime minister to the 1MDB scandal. A hearing date for this matter has yet to be fixed.- Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.