Sanusi contends speech backed by records on Anwar’s sodomy case

 

Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor contended that his 15th general election (GE15) campaign speech was based on public records about Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy 1 case and other moral-related matters.

In his statement of defence against Tambun MP Anwar’s defamation suit, the PAS state chief said that he is ready to prove in court the contents of his speech by referring to the 2004 Federal Court remark about the plaintiff’s sodomy matter, among other matters, widely known by the general public.

According to the court filing made on Feb 13 at the Alor Setar High Court and sighted by Malaysiakini, Jeneri assemblyperson Sanusi (photo above, right) cited the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment.

Justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are factual and, if proven successfully in court, these would act as an absolute defence against the defamation action.

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, 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.

Unsuccessful legal bid

Pakatan Harapan chairperson Anwar’s civil action is over PAS election director Sanusi’s speech - allegedly containing an "out of akhlak ” remark - in the Tambun parliamentary constituency on Nov 13 last year while stumping for Perikatan Nasional candidate Ahmad Faizal Azumu.

Defendant Sanusi claimed that among these facts were that Anwar was expelled from the Dr Mahathir Mohamad cabinet in the 1990s due to moral issues and the 2004 Federal Court remark by then chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed which acquitted plaintiff Anwar in the Sodomy 1 case.

In the grounds of judgment, Hamid said that "there was evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime".

Hamid, however, said that "the court may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law".

Anwar had previously mounted an unsuccessful legal bid to have the apex court expunge the remark.

Public audience

Sanusi also made reference to Anwar’s conviction for abuse of power and sentencing to six years in jail, which the apex court upheld in 2002.

The defendant referred to the ongoing civil action by Anwar’s former research officer Muhammad Yusoff Rawther against the PKR leader over an alleged sexual assault.

Sanusi added that Anwar misunderstood the context of the former’s speech as it was not done out of malice to defame in front of a public audience but merely to critique the latter based on widely known facts.

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff himself had hurled various accusations against other parties during the GE15 campaign period.

“Therefore, it is unreasonable and puzzling for a politikus such as the plaintiff who loves to accuse other politikus with words such as penyamun, bodoh, and so on, to suddenly feel sensitive when the other side gives comment and critique based on his background which is generally known.

“The plaintiff should not be someone who is thin-skinned, especially during a general election campaign, considering the plaintiff himself liked to hurl accusations,” Sanusi contended.

Mere hearsay

Meanwhile, in a reply filed on March 13, Anwar claimed that not only Sanusi’s reliance on the Sodomy 1 matter and ousting from Mahathir’s cabinet were mere hearsay but that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s royal pardon given on May 16, 2018, had fully erased the plaintiff’s previous criminal convictions.

The plaintiff contended that as the royal pardon in effect had restored him into a person who is not guilty, then the defendant’s related statements are defamatory and actionable.

Anwar pointed out that criminal records, including reported judgments, cannot be tendered in civil court proceedings such as the present defamation action as it is forbidden by the Evidence Act 1950.

The plaintiff also countered that it was sub judice of Sanusi to try to bring in Yusoff’s civil action into the present action.

Under the law, sub judice refers to a matter still being presided over by a court and thus should not be brought into public discussion elsewhere.

Royal pardon

According to a copy of the suit’s statement of claim, Anwar claimed that Sanusi’s speech contained the allegation that the prime minister was “out of akhlak (morals)”, among other allegations.

Anwar contended that the statement was slanderous, false, and disparaging to him.

He claimed that the statement implied, among others, that he was not a good Muslim and abused his power in his political party to obtain a royal pardon.

In 2018, Anwar was granted a royal pardon in relation to the Sodomy 2 case, namely the one involving his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Through the civil suit, the plaintiff seeks general, compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

Anwar also applied for an injunction to restrain Sanusi from further uttering or publishing defamatory words against him.

He is seeking 5 percent interest on the judgment sum from the date of the legal action accrued until full settlement, costs, and any other relief deemed fit by the court.

Anwar is represented by counsel Sankara Nair, while lawyer Yusfarizal Yussof acted for Sanusi.

The civil action is set to come up for case management before the Alor Setar High Court on Monday next week. - Mkini