Ex-IGP acted with malice against Nurul Izzah, says lawyer

Former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar has been accused of acting with malice against PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar in describing her 2015 meeting with Jacel Kiram as being planned.

Lawyer R Sivarasa, representing Nurul Izzah, told the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that Khalid had disregarded his client’s explanation over her photograph with Jacel.

Jacel is the daughter of the late Jamalul Kiram III, the leader of a Sulu armed group behind the Lahad Datu incursion.

"Khalid's failure to make any sort of corrective statement after the investigation is also evidence of malice. A responsible or professional police official would have completed the investigation and clarified the position.

"He assumed without an iota of evidence that Nurul Izzah's meeting with Jacel was pre-planned. He completely disregard Nurul Izzah's public explanation that she did not seek to arrange the meeting," Sivarasa said before judicial commissioner Faizah Jamaludin.

In court today, Sivarasa also said the malice of Khalid’s action were evident in Nurul Izzah (photo) being held in Bukit Aman overnight when she came to the police headquarters voluntarily to provide a statement.

"My client was told that she was held overnight with the orders coming from the highest level of Bukit Aman. Khalid must have been briefed by his officers, but yet made the statement," he said.

In 2015, Nurul Izzah had filed suit against the former IGP and Rural and Regional Development Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob for calling her meeting with Jacel treasonous.

The picture was taken by Jacel during Nurul Izzah's visit to the Philippines, where she was attending a forum.

‘Still defamatory’

The lawyer also revealed in court today that Ismail’s offer to settle the lawsuit earlier this month failed to materialise.

Ismail had called for action to be taken against Nurul Izzah under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act and the Penal Code for the offence of waging war against Yang di-Pertuan Agong after the photo of her and Jacel emerged.

According to Sivarasa, Ismail should still be held liable for defamation, as it had been proved that the meeting with Jacel had not planned beforehand.

"These are not comments, let alone fair comments. These are defamatory to Nurul Izzah based on the assumption that the meeting was pre-planned.

"If we are wrong in our contention, it is submitted that the defence will still fail, as the as the defence of fair comment must be based on facts established to be true.

“The plaintiff has proven that the meeting is coincidental," he said.

Hence, Sivarasa argued that the court should consider awarding his client aggravated and exemplary damages, along with general damages.

Senior federal counsel Normastura Ayub for the defendants argued that that Khalid and Ismail had made fair comments, as it was based on questions they were asked by reporters.

She also pointed out that the plaintiff did not plead malice in the lawsuit, and asked the court not to take this into consideration.

Normastura also argued the defence of qualified privilege, as both Khalid and Ismail were commenting on matters concerning national security and public interest.

Faizah fixed April 9 to deliver her decision. -Mkini