PUTRAJAYA (Aug 30): A three-member Federal Court bench on Tuesday (Aug 30) dismissed Sungai Besar Umno division chief Datuk Seri Jamal Md Yunos' appeal to set aside a defamation suit filed against him by Petaling Jaya Member of Parliament Maria Chin Abdullah and general damages of RM150,000.
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who led the apex court bench, said they were not satisfied with lawyer V Mugunthan’s argument for permission to have the appeal heard on its merits.
“We (the bench) are not persuaded in granting leave to appeal. Hence, we dismiss the notice of motion for leave,” she said while delivering the unanimous decision.
Sitting with her on the bench were Federal Court judges Datuk Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.
Furthermore, the bench ordered Jamal, who is also the Selangor Umno treasurer, to pay RM30,000 costs to Maria.
Mugunthan, who appeared with Mohd Nasir Yusof, had wanted to pose four questions of law based on slander.
He said their client did not refer to Maria specifically, and that what was uttered by their client could not be considered as libel, but slander.
“To argue the case, the plaintiff (Maria) should have brought a witness that is acquainted with her. This was something which her lawyers failed to do,” he said.
The lawyer also said the issue of slander is a novel issue which the apex court would possibly decide upon for the first time, as there were not many such cases brought up.
In his reply, Maria’s senior counsel Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar said what Jamal had uttered should be considered libel and defamatory, as it was reported by several media, and there was also a finding by the High Court trial judge and the Court of Appeal that his words were libellous.
Gurdial, who appeared with Abraham Au, said Jamal may not admit it then, but when he received the letter of demand for the suit, he admitted that it came from Maria, and threw the letter in the toilet, describing the document as "najis" (filth).
This was not a question of slander but of libel, and the courts had made a finding of fact based on the cross-examination done on Jamal himself, he added.
Gurdial also said Jamal was referring to Maria when he described a person who is married to a former Palestinian Liberation Organization sympathiser, and alleged that the person was involved in Daesh and the Islamic State.
“The applicant knew who he was referring to, and we have cross-examined him on that. There is nothing novel in the issue or questions posed, as the issue here is not slander but libel. This is a fact,” he said.
Mugunthan, meanwhile, maintained that what was said was merely slander, and that Maria should have brought a witness who is acquainted with her, but Harmindar interjected that this is not the law or proper court procedure.
“If you make a statement against a person, you are still liable to face a defamation suit,” the top judge added.
Jamal made the statement in 2016, when Maria was the chairwoman of Bersih 2.0, claiming she had terrorist links which resulted in her being detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012.
Maria won her suit against Jamal in the High Court in 2018, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision in March this year, but reduced the quantum of damages from RM300,000 to RM150,000.