Mp My Moral Duty To Highlight Anwar S Rm15m Payment

---

Kuala Terengganu MP Ahmad Amzad Hashim 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.
The PAS lawmaker said this as part of his defence of qualified privilege, fair comment and justification against the prime minister’s defamation suit.
On Dec 22 last year, Anwar filed a civil action on the alleged remarks by Amzad (above) that the Pakatan 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.
PKR president 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.
Justification is a defence that the statements or allegations are factual and, if proven successfully 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.
According to his statement of defence filed at the High Court in Kuala Terengganu on Feb 28 this year and sighted by Malaysiakini, Amzad contends that his statement was not issued out of malice.
The defendant said this is because voters have the right to receive comments on current issues involving the actions of politicians as well as on the government's financial management.
Others have raised the issue
Amzad claimed that his statement was based on the fact that Faekah Hussin - who used to be the chief executive officer of Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) in Selangor - raised the issue of the RM15 million claim.
He pointed out that the issue was also raised by then Tanjong Karang MP Noh Omar during the Budget debate in the Dewan Rakyat in 2015.
He also noted that Anwar never took legal action against Faekah over the allegation.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim“The defendant also stressed that the defendant is under a political and/or moral and/or social responsibility to disseminate issues about financial management to be evaluated by the public.
“Plaintiff as a ‘politikus’ needs to be brave in taking responsibility over the facts stated by the defendant and not be hurt by the rebuke, recommendation and critique made by the defendant and society in general.
“The defendant stressed that the defendant has no ill-intent against the plaintiff in the TikTok video and the meet and informal chat (with the restaurant patrons), other than to give critique to the plaintiff to ensure transparency in the management of the nation’s finances,” Amzad contended.
Sodomy cases
In relation to the allegation about the pardon, 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.
Amzad noted that the 2018 royal pardon only mentioned the Sodomy 2 case and not any other criminal cases of Anwar.
The defendant further noted that it is widely known among the public regarding a remark in a 2004 Federal Court ruling that acquitted Anwar in the Sodomy 1 case.
In the apex court grounds of judgment, then chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed said: “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 previously mounted an unsuccessful legal bid in 2014 to get the apex court to expunge the remark.
The defamation suit is pending before the High Court in Kuala Terengganu.
Lawyers Sankara Nair and Yusfarizal Yussof represented Anwar and Amzad respectively. - Mkini

---