NST reports that MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki has, via his solicitors, sought RM100 million in damages from Bloomberg for an alleged injury to his reputation and professional standing.
The whole fiasco reared its ugly head when Bloomberg first reported Azam’s ownership of 17.7 million shares in financial services firm Velocity Capital Partner Bhd.
In the meantime, Bloomberg defended its published article. In responding to The Edge, a spokesperson of Bloomberg confidently said “We stand by our reporting”, suggesting they are prepared for a legal battle rather than a retraction.
In other words, Bloomberg is more than ready to face Azam in court. Whether Azam is equally ready to finally litigate this case in court is anybody’s guess.
Azam’s cause of action against Bloomberg rests on a tort of defamation. And a libel suit is essentially about the protection of one’s image and reputation. Azam believes Bloomberg’s report has severely besmirched his good name. Hence, he may want to savour his vindication in a court of law.
Whenever I represent a client who seeks to claim damages for libel, my usual advice would be, “Are you sure and absolutely confident that no skeletons are in your closet at all? Why?
A libel suit is absolutely a dangerous game and risky business, too. Any wrong move may have perilous consequeces such as one’s dirty laundry might be hung out for all the world to see. This is normally done via a powerful “weapon” available in a courtroom’s litigation, namely, cross-examination.
Assuming Azam is fully ready to litigate his libel suit against Bloomberg, there are several possible defences available to Bloomberg, such as justification, fair comment, or oft-cited media defences, namely qualified privilege and its related “progeny” such as the Reynolds’ Privilege (commonly referred to as responsible journalism) and Neutral Reportage.
Public interest or mere curiosity
The whole basis of these “media defences” is contingent upon whether the public had an interest in the matter, as opposed to merely being interested in matters.
In one local case which was decided by our judiciary, the court held that while “being interested in a matter” may refer to matters that were titillating, salacious, or gossipy, but matters which were of public interest, au contraire, included those which affect the public in terms of governance of their country, their safety, security, and right to judge public representatives fairly on the basic of real information.
Let us wait and see whether Azam really looks forward to a complete vindication in court.
At present, it remains a litigation guesswork, and the fact that the government has formed a special committee - chaired by the chief secretary to the government - to investigate the latest claims by Bloomberg seems to reaffirm the scepticism about Azam’s real intention of facing Bloomberg in court.
Hopefully, the people’s scepticism is misplaced. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.