Agenda Daily contended that it had practised responsible journalism in its article regarding Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob.
Muhammad Izwan Mohd Zubit (above), the proprietor of Agenda Daily Media Enterprise which operates the news portal, claimed that the article “Ismail Sabri bimbang jadi PM paling singkat, ‘rayu’ jangan tarik sokongan” (Ismail Sabri worries of becoming shortest-lived PM, ‘begs’ for support) was published without malice.
“The defendant demands that the plaintiff (Ismail) provides details that it was done with malice,” he said in a statement of defence filed last week against the premier’s defamation suit.
On Feb 17 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Ismail Sabri filed a civil action over the article. The next day, the premier obtained an injunction for Agenda Daily to take down the article, pending disposal of the main civil suit.
Agenda Daily has since taken down the article in compliance with the court order to do so. The court has also previously set April 27 to hear the news portal’s bid to set aside the injunction.
Based on current scenario
Previously on Feb 5, Agenda Daily’s chief executive officer Izwan defended the article as a political analysis based on the current scenario.
According to today’s report by Free Malaysia Today, he claimed the impugned statement should be interpreted in the proper context and not regarded in isolation.
“Whether the statement is defamatory, it must be looked at objectively and evaluated from a reasonable man’s view,” the news portal quoted him as saying.
Izwan also raised the defence of justification and fair comment.
Under the law of civil action for defamation, justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are true, and if proven successful in court, this would act as an absolute defence against the legal action.
The defence of fair comment is one where the impugned statement was made as a fair comment (rather than as a statement of fact) over an issue of public interest.
“The defendant pleads that the statements in the article are facts, true and a comment of public interest,” Izwan said.
He alleged that the article’s headline, which contained the word ‘rayu’ (beg), did not carry a negative connotation or meant disrespect in politics.
“On the other hand, it reflects a politician’s humility and to be big-hearted to garner support for him,” he claimed.
Izwan contended that when Ismail Sabri was appointed premier last year, he garnered the support of 114 of the 220 lawmakers in Parliament.
“As such, the government he is leading now has a slim majority,” he alleged.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff could have offered a rebuttal rather than resort to civil action for defamation.
Direct access to media
Izwan claimed that Ismail Sabri has direct access to journalists in television and mainstream print media to clarify his position in public office and political career.
The defendant contended that the law gives recognition to the media’s role in highlighting matters of public interest such as current political developments and political stability in Malaysia.
“The public have the right to know, irrespective of whether the information is in favour or against the government,” Izwan claimed.
The legal action is set for case management before the High Court on April 21. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.