RM15m payment: PN MP has legal duty not to make false statement - Anwar

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim contended that Kuala Terengganu MP Ahmad Amzad Hashim is under a legal duty not to make false and slanderous statements regarding the former allegedly receiving RM15 million payment.

In his reply to Amzad’s statement of defence against his defamation suit at the High Court in Kuala Terengganu, the Pakatan Harapan chairperson pointed out that Faekah Hussin - who used to be the chief executive officer of Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) in Selangor and whom the PAS lawmaker cited for raising the issue - had actually denied making any such statement linked to Anwar’s time as economic adviser to Selangor.

Anwar, who is the Tambun MP, contended that the defendant could not rely on the defence of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment because not only Faekah denied ever having made such a statement, but that the plaintiff himself had rubbished the allegation during a previous Parliament sitting on Oct 13, 2014.

The PKR president cited the Dewan Rakyat Hansard of that sitting showing himself not only denying the allegation but also contending he was only paid RM1 worth of allowance for his advisory role to the state.

“Regardless of the plaintiff’s outright denial all along for many years, the defendant still persisted in uttering the impugned slanderous words, which is further evidence of malice and mala fide (bad intent).

“The plaintiff asserts that the defendant himself had, ab initio, admitted to the utterance of the said statements as being casual and informal and was not done in his political and professional capacity.

“As such, the defendant was and cannot be under a legal duty to utter the impugned slanderous words and/or the impugned libellous words to the group of customers.

“More so, the defendant does not have a legal duty to make false and malicious statements as per the impugned slanderous words and/or the impugned libellous words to anyone,” Anwar claimed.

On Feb 28 this year in his statement of defence, Amzad contended that he has a moral, social, and political duty to inform the public about the issue of Anwar Ibrahim allegedly receiving an RM15 million payment.

On Dec 22 last year, Anwar filed a civil action on the alleged remarks by Amzad that the Harapan chairperson lied about earning an RM1 salary when he was Selangor’s economic adviser.

Another issue targeted by the suit is the 2018 royal pardon that released Anwar from jail over the Sodomy 2 case.

Anwar claimed that Amzad - via a TikTok video - made several defamatory statements to a group of customers while dining at a restaurant on Dec 7 last year.

The plaintiff filed the reply to the defence on March 27.

Justification and qualified privilege

In relation to Amzad’s defence against the suit, 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 the defamation action.

Qualified privilege is a defence that applies in a situation where the words are issued by a person who has an interest, or a legal, social, or moral duty to do so, while fair comment is where the impugned statement was made as a fair comment, rather than as a statement of fact, over an issue of public interest.

In relation to the portion of Amzad’s defence that touched on the issue of the royal pardon granted to the plaintiff, Anwar pointed out that he had been fully pardoned by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and this resulted in the full extinguishment of all or any infamy against him in relation to previous criminal court cases.

The plaintiff contended that as a result, any further statements made over the matter are actionable in defamation, notwithstanding the judicial records.

Anwar further contended that Amzad cannot rely on the previous criminal records and court judgments as they are not admissible in the current civil case per the Evidence Act 1950.

In his statement of defence, Amzad relied on the widely known issue of Anwar’s conviction and six-year jail term for abuse of power imposed by the Criminal Bench of the High Court in 1999 and was upheld by the apex court in 2002, as well as the plaintiff’s Sodomy 1 and 2 cases.

The defamation suit is pending before the High Court in Kuala Terengganu.

Lawyers Sankara Nair and Yusfarizal Yussof represented Anwar and Amzad respectively. - Mkini