Lim Kit Siang was justified in his statement urging then attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali to answer why he had absolved former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak of the 1MDB affair in 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled.
Judge Azimah Omar this afternoon dismissed Apandi’s defamation suit against the DAP veteran over the 2019 article “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s on the road to integrity”, which was published on his blog.
The judge noted that Lim was justified in raising the issue, especially following Najib’s conviction by a separate High Court in 2020 in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case.
Azimah noted that Najib’s conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal last year.
The court also ordered Apandi to pay RM80,000 in legal costs to Lim.
On July 5, 2019, Apandi filed the civil suit, alleging that on May 6, 2019, Lim had written the alleged defamatory article.
He claimed that the article implied, among others, that he was involved in the 1MDB financial scandal, was a person with no morals and integrity, was unethical, and had abused his power when he was attorney-general from July 27, 2015, to June 4, 2018.
During the hearing of the civil action in April last year, Apandi broke down in court while testifying against Lim.
In a civil suit for defamation, justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are factual, and if proven successful in court, this would act as an absolute defence against legal action.
On Jan 26, 2016, Apandi, while holding up SRC monetary flow charts during a media briefing, announced that no charges would be brought against Najib based on the investigations carried out by MACC. SRC International was a former subsidiary of 1MDB.
While reading out from the 100-page judgment today, Azimah noted that Lim’s article was not imputing that Apandi was guilty of abuse of power.
The judge said the defendant was merely saying that there is further ground for investigation over the matter and that parties named in Apandi’s press statement should come forward to explain the irregular transactions.
Azimah pointed out that Najib was successfully prosecuted at both the High Court and Court of Appeal when the former prime minister was exonerated during Apandi’s tenure as AG.
“The defendant has succeeded in proving justification on the balance of probabilities. As far as the court is concerned, (Mohd) Nazlan’s (Mohd Ghazali) judgment is still standing as it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal,” she said.
Nazlan was the High Court judge who found Najib guilty in the SRC case. He has since been elevated to the Court of Appeal.
‘Lackadaisical attitude’
Azimah said in regard to Apandi’s testimony in court against Lim for the civil suit, the former AG’s oral evidence did not help his own case against the DAP stalwart.
She said the court found it perplexing that Apandi testified he was at the time satisfied with the explanation that the money which flowed into Najib’s account was a donation from Arab royalty.
Azimah said the court found Apandi’s decision to absolve Najib as “perplexing” and the story of the donation from the unnamed Arab donor as “fantastical”.
The judge pointed out that the plaintiff’s (Apandi) testimony displayed a “lackadaisical attitude” in regard to why the then AG refused mutual legal assistance (MLA) from Swiss and American authorities over the global probe into the 1MDB affair.
“The court is confounded by the plaintiff’s insistence on the donation story. The plaintiff showed a disinterested attitude on whether his delegation (from the Attorney-General’s Chambers) met the donor (during an official trip to Saudi Arabia as part of the probe in 2015).
“This court is perplexed by the plaintiff’s inability to name the donor. This is a common feature of the plaintiff’s testimony before this court.
“It is bizarre the plaintiff was not aware of (who was the) fabled donor,” Azimah noted.
Qualified privilege defence
The judge added that Lim succeeded in also raising the defence of qualified privilege against Apandi’s civil suit.
Under the law for a defamation suit, qualified privilege is a defence that applies in a situation where the words were issued by a person who has an interest or a legal, social or moral duty to do so.
Azimah noted that Lim had a duty as a lawmaker to raise the 1MDB issue as numerous complaints were lodged with proper channels for years prior to 2018 without any proper resolution.
The judge then made reference to the multi-agency task force - comprising the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the police, MACC, and Bank Negara Malaysia in 2015.
“Complaints on the 1MDB scandal had been lodged with the proper channels for years. The rakyat was calling for transparency to unravel the 1MDB scandal.
“The task force was set up to probe and give recommendations on how to curtail the 1MDB scandal.
“But apparently these complaints to the proper channels for years have fallen on deaf ears until the plaintiff relinquished his post as AG and the (previous BN) administration fell in 2018.
“No person was prosecuted for the 1MDB scandal during the plaintiff’s tenure as AG,” Azimah noted.
Apandi was represented by lawyer M Visvanathan while counsel Ramkarpal Singh and Sangeet Kaur Deo acted for Lim. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.