P Waytha Moorthy is suing Parti Putra Perkasa Negara (Putra) president Ibrahim Ali over the latter’s alleged labelling of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department as a “p**”.
Waytha Moorthy, whose portfolio is National Unity and Social Wellbeing, had filed the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, through law firm Messrs Karthig Shan, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on March 14.
According to a copy of the Statement of Claim sighted by Malaysiakini today, Ibrahim was alleged to have uttered the slur during Perkasa’s annual general assembly at Kuala Lumpur on Dec 2, last year.
The then Perkasa president’s purported slur was carried by online news portal Malay Mail Online via its article titled “At Perkasa AGM, enraged Ibrahim Ali calls Waytha Moorthy a “p**” on the same day.
Waytha Moorthy alleged that the defamatory words were further spread via online social media Facebook and Twitter, messaging app Whatsapp, among others.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had intentionally uttered the words with the knowledge that they were untrue and with the alleged motive of boosting the latter’s popularity among Malaysians, as well as to vent his jealousy against the former, among others.
Waytha Moorthy claimed that the statement, in its natural and common meaning, allegedly painted the plaintiff as a person with racial intention, not deserving of being a minister, had divided Malaysians especially the Malay community, had insulted the Malay community, had insulted Islam, and was responsible for false statements issued by leaders in India in regards to purported deaths of women and children, among others.
He claimed that Ibrahim’s defamatory words were intended to insult, bring low and bring shame to the plaintiff, expose him to hatred from members of the public and meant to pressure the government into expelling him from the cabinet.
Waytha Moorthy alleged that Ibrahim’s words had negatively affected the plaintiff in terms of his trustworthiness and reputation as Minister of Unity and national leader as well as his personal reputation.
He also claimed that Ibrahim failed to apologise and did not offer compensation over the alleged defamatory statement, despite having been sent having a letter of demand dated Dec 17, last year.
Wayhta Moorthy is seeking an injunction to restrain Ibrahim from further issuing, writing and publishing any defamatory statement on Malay Mail Online as well as to prevent Ibrahim from issuing any further similar defamatory statements.
He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, five percent annual interest on compensation calculated from the date of publication of the alleged defamatory article on Malay Mail Online on Dec 2, 2018, until the date of the court judgment.
The plaintiff also seeks five percent interest on damages calculated from the date of judgment until final payment completion by Ibrahim, cost and any other relief deemed fit by the court.
Ibrahim Ali claims he was misquoted by Malay Mail Online
Meanwhile, Ibrahim’s statement of defence filed by law firm Messrs Azam Aziz Shaharudinali & Co on April 22, stated that he had never uttered the defamatory words as his speech was misreported by Malay Mail Online.
The defendant alleged that the Perkasa event was a closed-door event not open to the media and that only registered Perkasa members were allowed to enter and listen to his speech.
Ibrahim claimed that his statement was a fair comment made in his capacity as president of Perkasa, an NGO which upholds the rights of Malays and bumiputras, as well as to address society’s concerns over current national issues of public interest, among others.
He raised the defence of justification as his statement was purportedly based on the truth derived from the statement as a whole and not the truth of every word raised.
Ibrahim alleged there was substantial truth in his speech as it was in relation to the police’s handling of the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple riot on Nov 26, last year, and that his statement was merely reviewing the facts of the incident, among others.
The veteran political leader also raised a preliminary objection against the Waytha Moorthy's statement of claim, where he alleged that the legal action was vague, handicapped, unspecific, and contravene Order 78 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012.
The provision deals with the obligation of plaintiffs of defamation actions to give particulars of the alleged defamatory statements being complained of, among others.
Ibrahim alleged that Waytha Moorthy failed to provide in the cause papers, a certified translation of every part of the statement that was alleged to have defamed the latter.
He claimed that the Malay Mail Online's English article relied on by the Waytha Moorthy was substantially inaccurate of what was actually uttered by the former in Bahasa Malaysia and that it did not accurately reflect word for word in verbatim what was said in Bahasa Malaysia. -Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.