Permatang Pauh MP Nurul Izzah Anwar and PKR did not defame National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) and its chairperson, the Federal Court in Putrajaya ruled today.
In a unanimous verdict, the three-person apex court dismissed the appeal by NFCorp and Mohamad Salleh Ismail.
The court also ordered the company and Salleh to pay RM50,000 in cost to Nurul Izzah and PKR.
They filed a suit against the PKR lawmaker and the political party for defamation over a press conference she held at Parliament in 2012.
It involved an allegation that RM71.4 million of government funds for the feedlot project were used as leverage to purchase condominium units in KL Eco City.
On March 4, 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the defamation suit, ruling that the defendants succeeded in their defence of justification over the statement.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision on July 10, 2017.
On March 8, 2018, the Federal Court granted leave to NFCorp and Salleh to proceed with their appeal.
The apex bench was chaired by Federal Court judge Mohd Zawawi Mohd Salleh Zawawi. The other judges were Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal.
In reading out the unanimous verdict, Harmindar said Nurul Izzah and PKR have succeeded in relying on the defence of justification.
He noted that NFCorp and Salleh failed to dispel the assertion that the RM71.4 million public funds held in fixed deposit at Public Bank played a part in the bank’s loan facilities for the purchase of eight units of property at KL Eco City at the present market value of RM12 million.
The judge was referring to the appellants’ contention that it was misleading to state that the fixed deposit account was used as collateral or leverage to secure the loan facilities to purchase the eight property units.
“With respect, the overwhelming inference from what transpired at the trial is that this cannot be true. It is certainly not a coincidence that the loan facilities came from the same bank where the RM71.4 million deposit was placed.
“It is common knowledge that banks will not simply offer loans unless they are satisfied that the customer seeking the loans is in a position to repay them.
“If it is true that the banks only require the security of the titles for loans to be provided, then anyone who buys property would ipso facto be granted a bank loan,” he said.
It was, therefore, a matter of some significance that when challenged to do so, the First Appellant (Salleh) failed to disclose his sources of income to finance the purchase of the eight units of condominiums apart from making bare assertions as duly noted by the High Court judge, he added.
“Considering the possible damaging inferences that may arise from the RM71.4 million deposit, the First Appellant ought to have called someone from Public Bank to support his claims.
“It was therefore plain on the evidence that the appellants had used the RM71.4 million deposit as leverage for obtaining the loans from Public Bank.
“The fact that the loan offer had expired is of little consequence. In fact, it would not be farfetched to deduce, from the entirety of the evidence at the trial, and in the sense, as noted above, that there has been misuse of public funds for personal gain,” Harmindar said.
He added that the courts below were also correct in concluding the impugned 2012 statement has not defamed NFCorp and Salleh on the whole.
He said the ordinary reasonable reader would not have arrived at the conclusion that the statement, upon being read in its entirety, was defamatory against the two appellants.
Harmindar noted that a reasonable reader would not pay any attention to a single sentence in the very lengthy impugned statement, which formed the crux of the entire defamation action in the first place.
He said this is because such a reasonable reader would only be focused on the major part of the statement, which concerned Salleh’s wife Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the then women, family and community development minister.
“That was the main sting, which, because of its focus ameliorated, the effect of the subject matter of complaint was, in effect, that one sentence.
“It was meant to only be a precursor or introduction to the main sting in that it was the revelation by (then PKR lawmaker Mohd) Rafizi (Ramli) of the (allegation of) misuse of funds that led to the First Appellant (Salleh), raising new questions about the conflict of interest of Shahrizat in the purchase of the condominiums.
“No action has since been filed by Shahrizat in respect of these allegations although a suit was filed against Rafizi for the statements which he had made.
“For these reasons, we would agree with the findings of the Court of Appeal and dismiss the appeal,” he said.
Counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for NFCorp and Salleh, while lawyer Razlan Hadri represented Nurul Izzah and PKR’s secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.