KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 28): Former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s suit against Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for alleged defamation by referring to him as “kutty”, is set for hearing on Sept 11.

Counsel Mior Nor Haidir Suhaimi who represented Dr Mahathir told reporters after a case management before judge Datuk Rozana Ali that Sept 11 to 14 has been set for the hearing.

Zahid was represented by lawyer Mohd Shahril bin Madisa.

Justice Rozana set July 14 for a case management before the hearing.

Mahathir said that Ahmad Zahid had made the “kutty” remarks in questioning his ancestry at an Umno Kelana Jaya divisional meeting in July 2017, and again in July last year.

In a statement of claim filed last year, Mahathir alleged that Ahmad Zahid’s statement was done with malice, and was defamatory and made with the intention of inducing public hatred against him.

Mahathir said his late father Mohamad Iskandar was a Malay from Penang, whose ancestors came from Kerala, India, while his mother Wan Tempawan Wan Hanapi was a Malay from Kedah.

He said Ahmad Zahid’s defamatory statement in its natural and ordinary meaning meant that he (Mahathir) was not born as a Malay and that his original name was Mahathir a/l (son of) Iskandar Kutty;  that he (Mahathir) had used the Malays when he was the prime minister to get political and personal gain; that he (Mahathir) was ashamed his ancestors had Indian blood and that he had a skewed view about the Indian community.

Mahathir also argued that the words questioning his ancestry also meant that he is a liar, and has raised questions over his leadership for the advancement of the Malays; that he is unethical in holding public positions, and not capable of being a leader.

The 97-year-old veteran, who was former Langkawi member of Parliament, reiterated that Ahmad Zahid’s remarks were made with malice and that his (Ahmad Zahid’s) intention was to disparage Mahathir’s reputation. Mahathir said these remarks had resulted in personal attacks against him (Mahathir) and gave the impression that he was dishonest and irresponsible.

Mahathir added that his lawyers had issued a notice of demand against Ahmad Zahid last June but that in his (Ahmad Zahid’s) reply, the former deputy prime minister had outrightly rejected the notice and pleaded justification and fair comment.

“In my opinion, such defences of justification and fair comment are without merit and will fail,” Mahathir said, adding that he also filed two tape recordings containing the video of the purported events.

Mahathir is seeking general, exemplary and aggravated damages from Ahmad Zahid and an injunction barring him or his agents from repeating the making of such claims.

Ahmad Zahid had filed his defence last August via Messrs Shahrul Hamidi & Haziq, whereby he categorically denied making the statement in July 2017 and placing the burden of proof on Mahathir to prove it.

Ahmad Zahid maintained that what he said on the individual “Mahathir anak lelaki Iskandar Kutty” was based on information he obtained from an old identity card.

“The plaintiff (Mahathir) is free to pursue any grievance that he has,” the Umno president added.

Ahmad Zahid said that what he said in 2017 did not specifically refer to Mahathir, as the name is based on an old identity card.

He said if Mahathir considers that the words had referred to him (Mahathir), it was because of his (Mahathir’s) actions in attacking Umno's reputation. Moreover, Ahmad Zahid said if Mahathir been affected by what had been said, he should have filed the suit earlier.

Zahid further denied that the comments made were defamatory in nature and pleaded the defence of justification and fair comment.

Ahmad Zahid also referred to Mahathir’s book “A doctor in the house: Memoirs of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad” wherein the 97-year-old admitted that his ancestors were from Southern India.

Ahmad Zahid further alleged that it was Mahathir who had attacked first, by denigrating and degrading Umno in 2016, and that he (Ahmad Zahid) was merely responding to those attacks as then party vice-president.

Ahmad Zahid also said that such statements had not affected Mahathir’s reputation, given that Mahathir subsequently won the parliamentary seat for Langkawi in 2018.

As such, Ahmad Zahid argued that Mahathir was not entitled to general, aggravated and exemplary damages and the injunction sought is against the freedom of expression.