Malaysiakini goldmine appeal case postponed to Dec 1

 

The Federal Court has postponed to Dec 1 the hearing of Malaysiakini’s appeal to quash a lower court ruling that the online news portal’s reports on the Raub Australian Gold Mining (RAGM) company were defamatory.

A five-person bench chaired by Federal Court judge Vernon Ong Lam Kiat put off the hearing during open court proceedings this morning.

Other members of the bench were Federal Court judges Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zaleha Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Rhodzariah Bujang.

Today was initially slated for the apex court to hear Malaysiakini’s appeal against a Court of Appeal decision on January 2018 which ordered the news portal to pay a sum of RM350,000 - RM200,000 in damages and another RM150,000 in legal costs - to RAGM for defamation.

The Court of Appeal verdict overturned an earlier Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling dismissing RAGM’s claim.

The Federal Court was to hear Malaysiakini’s appeal today together with another appeal by a vernacular newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, in a defamation suit against it filed by lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon (below).

The court postponed Malaysiakini’s appeal after being informed by Utusan’s counsel Wong Rhen Yen that his client and Manjeet were looking into the possibility of settling the matter.

Wong said they sought a postponement as they were seeking the opinion of the liquidator on Utusan's chances of success in the appeal.

“There is a possibility of settling the matter, hence we seek an adjournment of the matter,” Wong said.

The lawyer then applied for Utusan’s appeal to be separated from Malaysiakini’s appeal due to the possibility of settlement in the former.

Manjeet’s counsel Americk Sidhu then told the bench he had no objections to the postponement bid.

Malaysiakini’s counsel Cyrus Das and RAGM’s counsel Cecil Abraham then informed the court they were both ready to proceed with the hearing of the online news portal’s appeal today.

However, Ong postponed both appeals to Dec 1 as an earlier direction from the Federal Court was for both matters to be heard together.

The judge, however, noted that irrespective of whether Utusan's appeal proceeded or not, hearing of Malaysiakini’s appeal would commence on Dec 1.

RAGM’s lawsuit was filed over a series of Malaysiakini reports on the health concerns of Bukit Koman villagers in Raub, Pahang who had raised the alarm that sodium cyanide, a highly poisonous compound, was being used by the mine in its extraction of gold ore.

The gold mine has since gone into liquidation and is no longer in operation.

Cyrus Das (centre) and Steven Gan, Malaysiakini's co-founder (left)

One of the key issues to be determined by the Federal Court in this appeal is whether the defence of reportage will be accepted. While the defence of reportage has been accepted in a number of countries, this is the first time the matter has been brought before the Malaysian courts.

Reportage is a defence against defamation lawsuits, usually involving media organisations republishing circumstantial accusations about public figures or entities in the public interest through unbiased reporting.

Media organisations using this defence can argue that they are not implying the circumstantial statements are true but simply reporting - in a neutral manner - that the potentially libellous statements were made by third parties.

On May 23, 2016, Malaysiakini won its case at the High Court which ordered the gold mine to pay RM50,000 in costs.

However, on Jan 11, 2018, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision.

In the wake of the Court of Appeal decision, Malaysiakini managed to raise RM350,000 from its readers and supporters in two weeks to pay for the damages and costs.

After granting leave to Malaysiakini to challenge the appellate court decision in 2018, Federal Court judge Zainun Ali, who led a three-member bench then, said the questions of law posed to the apex court should focus on the defence of reportage and whether damages could go to a company that has gone into insolvency. - Mkini