Tony Pua's lawyer: Unjust if Najib withdraws suit now

It would be unjust for Damansara MP Tony Pua if the Kuala Lumpur High Court allows former premier Najib Abdul Razak to withdraw his suit against him when Pua has already obtained leave from the Federal Court to challenge the injunction imposed on him.

Lawyer Tan Ch'ng Leong for Pua today said the suit had reached an advanced stage where Najib had obtained an interim injunction against his client for more than one year and withdrawing it at this stage would be seen as benefiting the former premier.

He reminded that a three-member Federal Court bench had on June 20 allowed leave for Pua to challenge the Court of Appeal decision to allow Najib's gag order on him.

"The Federal Court has fixed Aug 3 for case management and this involves questions of law that would be of great benefit to be decided by the apex court," Tan told Justice Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab.

"It would be prejudicial against my client if the withdrawal of this suit is allowed by this High Court when the Federal Court has yet to hear the full appeal."

Najib's lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun had wanted to withdraw the suit on July 13 but Pua through Tan had declined the offer resulting in today's hearing.

The suit against Pua resulted when the DAP national publicity secretary and now special officer to the Finance Minister was said to have held a Facebook live session at the Parliament lobby in April last year alleging that the tabling of the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) by Najib was to divert attention from the 1MDB fiasco

Najib had also obtained an interim injunction against Pua preventing him from repeating the allegation where Justice Zaki had allowed the former premier's gag application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision and went a step further when the bench took judicial notice that the former premier did not do anything wrong with regards to 1MDB.

Tan said his client had obtained an advantage with leave was granted at the Federal Court

"Adverse findings have been made against the defendant and by obtaining leave, this gives an opportunity to have (the Court of Appeal ) finding reversed.

"To discontinue at this stage (with the withdrawal) it would be prejudicial. My client is left with no avenue to justify his statement that was made in the Facebook live session despite the elaborate statement of defence already filed," he said.

Tactical manoeuvre

Hafarizam in reply said to let bygone be bygones as Najib would make a full withdrawal without the liberty to file afresh.

He said that the suit had not gone to an advanced stage and although today had been fixed for the first day of trial, witness statements had yet to be filed.

Hafarizam said the situation now would not leave anyone at an advantage, though the withdrawal would seem to be for Pua's advantage as the Court of Appeal had made a finding that all of the defendant's defence would fail.

The argument said Hafarizam, that this was a tactical manoeuvre by Najib did not hold water as such an argument could also be made at the Federal Court.

"How can there be tactical manoeuvre when the appellate court ruled Pua's defence failed," he said adding that Najib was willing to pay costs of RM15,000 to discontinue the suit.

"We pray that an order discontinuance be allowed," he said.

Justice Zaki said he needed time to deliver his decision on whether to allow the withdrawal or otherwise and set next Monday morning for decision.

When leave was granted on June 20 by the then Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Ma'arop, the four questions of law to be decided are:

1. Whether a 1987 precedent set in the defamation case between New Straits Times Press and AirAsia Bhd is good law in view of the constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression.

2. Whether an application for an interim injunction ought to be dismissed in cases where the defendant had pleaded the defences of justification and fair comment in his defence, and/or stated under oath affirming that his belief that this statement was true.

3. Whether the exercise of the speaker of the Dewan Rakyat’s powers precludes a plaintiff’s right to establish that the exercise of the power was not bona fide in a civil suit.

4. Whether the court can treat the fact that the attorney general had decided not to prosecute a case and his explanation for not doing so as being tantamount to an exoneration. -Mkini