Court strikes out sedition suit against Hadi

 

Two practising Christians from Sabah failed in their suit against Abdul Hadi Awang over the PAS president’s alleged seditious statement against followers of the faith.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning allowed Hadi’s application to strike out the originating summons by the two plaintiffs, Maklin Masiau and Lawrence Jomiji Kinsil @ Maximilhian.

The Marang MP had applied to strike out the suit over grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.

Hadi’s counsel Yusfarizal Yussof confirmed that judge Akhtar Tahir had allowed the application.

“The defendant’s striking-out application is allowed,” the lawyer said when contacted today.

Lawyer R Kengadharan represented the two plaintiffs from Sabah.

On Dec 9 last year, the two Sabahans filed the legal action over Hadi’s statement published in PAS’ party organ Harakah on Jan 18, 2016.

The duo claimed that the statement was then reported by online news portal Free Malaysia Today on the same day. A copy of the news report is being relied on by them for the suit.

They sought a declaration that Hadi has committed an act of sedition contrary to Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948.

They seek a declaration that the defendant is unfit to hold any position in the government of Malaysia, including that of a position equivalent to a ministerial post.

On April 2, it was reported that Hadi was appointed as special envoy to the Middle East with ministerial rank. This took place shortly after the fall of the Pakatan Harapan administration and the emergence of the current Perikatan Nasional government.

In their statement of claim, the two plaintiffs alleged that Hadi’s statement had also cast aspersions on the Christian community in Malaysia.

“We respectfully state that the defendant has made an unfounded statement and cast aspersions on Christians and/or Christian missionaries.

“The defendant’s statement has affected the Christian community in the country and has thus become a matter of public interest.

“However, it has been more than four years since the defendant issued this seditious statement, but no prosecution has been brought against the defendant,” the two plaintiffs alleged. - Mkini