PKR deputy president Rafizi Ramli is ready to prove in court the contents of his three articles that are the subject of a defamation suit against him.
The former Pandan MP cited justification in his statement of defence against the civil action by Sapura Energy Berhad (SEB)’s former president and CEO Shahril Shamsuddin.
Under the law, justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are factual and, if proven successful in court, this would act as an absolute defence against legal action.
Shahril, who is presently Sapura Group’s president and CEO, is suing Rafizi over three allegedly defamatory articles carried on the latter’s blog between March 31 and April 4.
The three articles formed part of Rafizi’s then online debate with former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak over whether it was proper for public funds to be used to bail out SEB and over the root cause of the company’s financial distress.
Among the issues at the heart of the debate was whether Shahril’s remuneration as then SEB CEO was excessive.
On March 18, Bernama reported that SEB suffered a RM8.9 billion loss for the financial year ending Jan 31 2022, and its subsidiaries were served with winding up petitions.
According to a copy of the defence filed at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court this morning and sighted by Malaysiakini, Rafizi denied that the three articles carried suggestions of false innuendo.
The defendant claimed that the articles, in their natural and ordinary meaning, touched on the media-reported controversy over the payments to Sapura’s executive directors in light of the company’s financial plight.
Rafizi alleged that the three articles are true in substance and in fact.
The defendant contended that he did not mention Shahril’s name in his online posts but that it was Najib’s postings that allegedly mentioned the businessperson’s name.
“The defendant contends that this action is an abuse of process, being an attempt by the plaintiff to stifle legitimate public discussion, comment and/or criticism regarding the matters below,” Rafizi contended.
The defendant further contended that he has “the legal, moral, and social duty and responsibility to the public to air his views on issues facing Malaysia as a whole, as well as issues pertaining to public funds and corporate governance in respect of national-related and/or government-linked companies (“GLC”) and issues shaping the nation’s public corporate sector and political arena”.
Fair comment defence
Rafizi also cited fair comment and qualified privilege as a further defence against Shahril’s civil action.
The defence of fair comment is one where the impugned statement was made as a fair comment, rather than as a statement of fact, over an issue of public interest.
Qualified privilege is a defence that applies in a situation where the words were issued by a person who has an interest, or a legal, social, or moral duty to do so.
Rafizi contended that the articles were fair comments on matters of public interest and that corporations must ensure good corporate governance is in place to ensure their operations remain sustainable and competitive.
He claimed that it is fair comment as public funds should not be used as an avenue to rescue Sapura or corporations that are financially strapped as it would lead to a poor corporate governance culture.
According to Shahril’s statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed the articles implied he was the sole cause of the financial distress by SEB and the sole cause of the loss of funds belonging to the public.
The plaintiff alleged the articles implied that after having purportedly caused the company’s financial distress, he allegedly sought the easy way out by seeking financial aid from the government.
Following case management of the legal action today, the sessions court directed Shahril to file his reply to Rafizi’s defence by Aug 26. The matter is set for further case management on Aug 26.
Lawyers from law firm Zul Rafique & Partners acted for Shahril, while Rafizi was represented by counsel from A I Nathan. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.