Farhash 2 Others File Rm10m Defamation Suit Against Malaysianow

---

 


Politician-turned-businessperson Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak and two others have filed a defamation suit against news portal MalaysiaNow and its editor, demanding RM10 million in damages over articles on the Sabah mining scandal.
Court documents sighted by Malaysiakini found that the suit was filed by Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co at the Shah Alam High Court on July 30.
Farhash, along with Bumi Suria Sdn Bhd and Mohd Aminudin Mustapha, named MNow Sdn Bhd and Muhammad Abd Ar-Rahman Koya as defendants.
Farhash (above) and Aminudin are the directors of Bumi Suria.
ADSApart from the RM10 million, the plaintiffs are also seeking aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, the court’s order for the defendants to publish a full, unconditional, and public apology on the portal, as well as five percent interest per annum, alongside other remedies deemed fit by the court.
Farhash and the two others are also demanding that the defendants delete the published articles from the MalaysiaNow website, and have also filed for an urgent injunction to stop the portal from reproducing the alleged defamatory articles.
Rahman’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan confirmed that the urgent application will be heard before judge Noor Hayati Mat on Aug 26 at 2.30pm, at the Shah Alam High Court.
Accused of damaging reputation
In their supporting affidavits, the plaintiffs said the alleged defamatory articles had tainted Farhash’s status as a well-known and respected public figure and Aminudin’s career and business relationships.
The articles, they claimed, depicted them as having abused their positions to obtain a mining licence illegally.
“The statements accused the plaintiffs of engaging in corruption and unethical practices (as well as) damaging Farhash and Aminudin’s reputation and integrity as businesspeople and public figures.
“It creates the suspicions that (the plaintiffs) are corrupt, dishonest, and unprincipled (causing) serious damage to their reputations, (with no) legitimate defence can be raised by the defendants regarding the publications.
“The defamatory statements clearly refer to the plaintiffs as stated in the article.”
MalaysiaNow editor Muhammad Abd Ar-Rahman Koya (centre)They claimed that any reasonable person who read the articles would know and reasonably conclude that it was referring to them.
Apart from natural and ordinary meaning, they claimed the articles have innuendoes suggesting they obtained mining licences illegally, through abuse of power, political connections, and interference in government approval processes.
They also claimed that MalaysiaNow did not function as an independent media company, but instead was used as a vehicle for unlawful purposes and to spread defamation that could tarnish certain individuals’ reputations for certain interests.
ADS“The second defendant (Rahman) was the sole director and shareholder of MalaysiaNow, which had the sole power in the portal’s management (including) decision-making in regards to the publications’ operation.
“(Rahman) is the controlling mind or the party that fully controls all the statements and actions published by the first defendant.
“The statements published were not solely on the basis of independent journalism, but were a personally motivated action by (Rahman),” the document read.
Accusation of ‘malicious falsehood’
The plaintiffs claimed that Bumi Suria was never awarded any mining licences by Sabah Mineral Management Sdn Bhd (SMM), the state’s central management agency that carries out technical and financial evaluations of mining licence applications in Sabah.
“SMM has no authority to issue a mining licence (and that there were) no mining licences issued to (Bumi Suria) under Sabah Mining Ordinance 1960.
“On July 24, the Sabah State Land and Survey Department (JTU) confirmed (the same).
“(Therefore) the defamatory statements published by the defendants are false, misleading, and made in bad faith, or at the very least, published negligently without proper verification of the facts,” the document read further.
The plaintiffs said the portal and Rahman have dishonestly misrepresented that the letter, published in their articles, was a valid mining licence, in an attempt to mislead the public and discredit them.
They added that the portal not only failed to function as an independent and impartial media entity, but was also used as a tool by certain parties with their own agendas.
“The damages suffered by the plaintiffs are serious and cannot be fully recovered by any oral explanation or public denial.
“The plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ actions amount to a malicious falsehood, as provided under Sections 5 and 6 of the Defamation Act 1957,” the document read. - Mkini

---