Tony Pua loses appeal to set aside Najib's injunction

Updated 6 years ago · Published on 14 Feb 2018 6:10PM · 2 Comments

Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua has lost his appeal to lift an injunction obtained by Prime Minister Najib Razak over a video posted on his Facebook page entitled 'BN Govt abandons all Bills to give precedence to PAS RUU355 Private Member's Bill'. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, February 14, 2018.

PETALING Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua has lost his appeal to lift an interim interparte injunction obtained by Najib Razak against him over a video clip which the prime minister claimed was defamatory.

The Court of Appeal’s three-man bench comprising Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Zaleha Yusof and Yaacob Md Sam today unanimously dismissed Pua’s appeal to set aside a high court decision in granting Najib the injunction order to restrain Pua from repeating the alleged slanderous allegations.

Yaacob, who delivered the court’s judgment said the court found that Najib had satisfied the necessary requirement for an interim injunction to be allowed.

He said there was evidence of Pua’s intention to repeat the alleged defamatory statement.

Yaacob also said the court took judicial notice that the attorney-general had made a decision that Najib had committed no wrongdoing in relation to 1MDB.

He said investigations were also carried out by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Royal Malaysia Police, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the results which have been disclosed to the public by the Attorney-General and the MACC cleared Najib of any criminal wrongdoing.

Yaacob said the high court judge did not commit any misdirection of law when granting Najib the interim injunction.

Najib sued Pua in his personal capacity, alleging that Pua had made defamatory statements against him on live video relating to the tabling of a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 or RUU355.

Najib said the video clip uploaded by Pua or his agents on the defendant’s official Facebook site, lasting two minutes and 21 seconds and entitled “BN Govt abandons all Bills to give precedence to PAS RUU355 Private Member’s Bill”, could be accessed widely and freely on the internet.

On April 21 last year, the high court allowed Najib’s application for an ex-parte injunction to restrain Pua from further publishing similar or the same words.

On January 26 the appellate court bench reserved decision in Pua’s appeal after hearing submissions from counsels. The court subsequently fixed today to deliver the verdict.

After the court’s decision, Najib’s lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun told reporters the trial of the lawsuit was fixed on April 23.

Meanwhile, lawyer Gobind Singh Deo representing Pua said he would be filing for leave to appeal to the federal court. – Bernama, February 14, 2018.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • The appeal court took notice of statement by four persons, chief of AG, IGP, MACC, and Bank Negara who did not say Najib was guilty of wrong doing in 1MDB, and so the court believed that Najib was innocent. We like to know whether the appeal court could rely on hearsay, since the court does not usually hear one side of the story and accept whatever is spoken. The 1MDB matter is really not straightforward. The judge has to believe that any disbursement of funds, billions in amount, must have the approval of Najib. Even if Najib had not authorize it at the time of payment, but if the money is found lost, Najib should have made heads roll. It was reported that 1MDB made payment to IPIC in BVI. Months later IPIC claimed that the money was not received. Had the payment been properly made, all relevant offices in IPIC would have been informed of that payment, and any error would have been rectified easily. When IPIC claimed that it did not receive the expected payment, the second Finance Minister of Malaysia said that 1MDB would fight, to win. Eventually 1MDB had to agree to pay USD 6.5 billion, including interest. The Finance minister said that it would fight and win, and he had to base his statement on fact. The fact was that USD 6.5 billion minus interest had been paid to an account which must have sounded like IPIC. That USD 6.5 minus a bit billion has now been found lost. Najib would not even want to explain to GANTI how the payment to IPIC had been made. He could have said that the money had been recovered from that sent over to IPIC-lookalike account in BVI. Malaysians want to know what action the government has taken to recover USD 6 billion or RM 24 billion, which was sent there by error. Indeed who provided the account number of IPIC at BVI to 1MDB. That person who provided the number must have cashed it. That money could have been used to buy whatever the DOJ of USA claimed to be paid by 1MDB funds. Many countries have found banks located in their country to be guilty of money laundering charges for dealing with 1MDB. If these banks are guilty just because it traded with 1MDB, then 1MDB's trading must be guilty of money laundering in the country concerned. Do we not have the anti money laundering law in Malaysia? There is an anti-sodomy law in the country, and strangely only one person was found guilty when sodomy involved two persons. That explains perhaps why 1MDB is not guilty of money laundering in Malaysia when persons who traded with 1MDB have been found guilty in six countries, and counting.

    Posted 6 years ago by Meng Kow Loh · Reply

  • Tony Pua could not have pronounced that Najib had committed any wrong doings beyond providing evidence of what had gone wrong in 1MDB. Najib admitted making mistakes in relation to the business model of 1MDB. Since Najib created 1MDB and had full and sole authority over 1MDB, the non-success of 1MDB in relation to the motivation of its setup can only prove that he was not proud of 1MDB and his leadership in it. Whether the four agencies had cleared Najib's wrong doing is not the issue. Now that the Appeal court has taken notice of it, and it is now relevant for the court to hear not only the evidence of the four agencies, but also the evidence against it. Indeed, the DOJ of USA should have the same reputation compared to the AG of Malaysia. Assuming their words carry the same weight, then the court will need to hear and decide whether the DOJ's claim that MO1 has caused funds in 1MDB to be siphoned for use by Jho Low and Najib's stepson. Clearly if the words of AG and the prosecutor to be taken as absolute truth, there will not be a need for the court. Or rather the court has to hear the evidence to then decide whom it believes. It is unprecedented that the Appeal court took note of the pronouncement for one party and rely on it to decide against another.

    The headquarters of IPIC is at Abu Dhabi, and yet 1MDB chose to make payment to IPIC at the bank in BVI. Looks like the decision to pay was not linked to the decision that IPIC at Abu Dhabi should be the recipient.

    Posted 6 years ago by Meng Kow Loh · Reply