MACC chief Azam Baki’s defamation suit against whistleblower Lalitha Kunaratnam has been fixed for a full court hearing beginning July 9 next year.
His counsel Mohd Shahir Md Tahir confirmed the hearing dates which were set during case management of the civil action before the Kuala Lumpur High Court earlier today.
“Full hearing has been rescheduled before judge Akhtar Tahir from July 9 to 12, 2024 at 10.30am via online (hearing), namely through Zoom application,” the lawyer told Malaysiakini.
Shahir said the initial trial dates on Jan 8 to 11 next year have been vacated.
The counsel added that the court has also fixed June 7 next year for online case management for the filing of witness statements, among others.
Through a press release on Jan 12 last year, Azam's legal team from the law firm Zain Megat & Murad, announced the filing of the defamation action. The MACC chief is suing Lalitha in his personal capacity.
Azam (above) previously issued a letter of demand to Lalitha via his lawyers, demanding an apology and RM10 million in damages.
Lalitha stood by her reports and criticised the MACC's attempt to rope in the police to investigate her.
Ownership of shares
Azam came under the spotlight over his ownership of 1,930,000 shares in Gets Global Berhad (previously KBES Berhad) on April 30, 2015, worth around RM772,000 at the time.
His shareholding in Gets Global Berhad went down to 1,029,500 as of March 31, 2016, worth around RM340,000 at the time.
He also held 2,156,000 warrants in Excel Force MSC Berhad in March 2016.
The share ownership in 2015 and 2016 raised questions on whether it is commensurate with his income as a public servant.
In a special press conference on Jan 5 last year, Azam did not dispute the ownership of the shares but claimed they were bought in his name by his brother. The shares have since been transferred to his brother.
Nearly a week later, on Jan 18, the Securities Commission (SC) announced that it had concluded its inquiry into the case and that it is unable to conclusively establish that a breach under Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) had occurred.
However, following criticism, the SC clarified that Azam had "control" over his own trading account and found no evidence of proxy trading.
In her statement of defence against the defamation suit, Lalitha contended that she is prepared to prove in court the contents of her online articles regarding the issue.
However, in reply to her statement of defence, Azam countered Lalitha could not be considered an investigative journalist as she lacked credibility and was untrustworthy. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.