PUTRAJAYA (Oct 14): Lawyers representing Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that he did not defame Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor.
Lead counsel Razlan Hadri Zulkifli submitted that even if the appellate bench upholds the Alor Setar High Court's finding of liability, the damages awarded should be reduced from RM600,000 to RM100,000.
Before a three-member bench led by Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, the lawyer argued that the High Court had erred in holding the then PKR secretary general liable for defamation over remarks made during campaign speeches leading up to the 2023 state election in 2023.
Razlan appeared alongside Selayang Member of Parliament William Leong and Navpreet Singh.
High Court judge Dr John Lee Kien How @ Mohammad Johan Lee previously found Saifuddin liable for defaming Sanusi during a Program Jelajah Madani event.
Saifuddin had alleged that the Kedah MB was linked to the theft of rare earth elements (REE) and had been fined RM500,000. Saifuddin further alleged that Sanusi had misused RM1.6 billion federal funds allocated for state road maintenance (Malaysian Road Records Information System (Marris) allocations) for state development instead.
On the REE allegations, Razlan said the issue stemmed from the unauthorised extraction of REE in Kedah and subsequent enforcement actions.
“The Kedah director of the Lands and Mines office had prepared a compound letter dated Oct 4, 2022, addressed to Kedah Menteri Besar Incorporated (MBI) for RM500,000. That letter was subsequently cancelled and replaced the next day (Oct 5, 2022) by a letter addressed to both MBI and an individual named Ho Chung Meng.
“Ho later accepted and paid the RM500,000 compound. MBI, where Sanusi is the chairman, remained named in the enforcement documents as the permit holder,” Razlan stressed.
As for the allegation of misusing the federal government allocation, the lawyer said his client was highlighting legitimate governance concerns about how the Kedah government had treated those funds.
In 2023, he said Kedah sought approval from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to transfer part of the balance allocation into the State Development Fund.
“Its own papers recorded that Marris monies had previously been used for other development expenditure. Kedah said the proposed transfer was for accounting reconciliation; however, MOF did not approve the transfer,” Razlan noted.
Razlan argued that while the term 'thief' might have been overly harsh in context, Saifuddin's comments addressed ongoing public-interest governance concerns.
As politicians debating election issues, the speaker should be afforded reasonable leeway even if the statements reflect "half-truths", the counsel further submitted.
'Thief' remark clearly defamatory and Sanusi never charged with any offence, counsel counters
In response, Sanusi's lead counsel Yusfarizal Yussoff argued that labelling someone a "thief" carries an inherently defamatory sting, particularly since the Kedah MB was never charged with committing an offence under Section 29 of the National Land Code.
It was Ho who paid the fine, Yusfarizal stressed, while noting Sanusi held only an advisory role rather than an executive position in MBI.
“Furthermore, Saifuddin admitted in court during cross-examination that he was the first person who used the word ‘pencuri’ (thief) in the allegation. He admitted first and this is an unequivocal admission. He cannot change the tone now in claiming it is not defamatory as it is,” Yusfarizal said.
Yusfarizal argued that prominent coverage by Malay dailies Utusan Malaysia and Kosmo! amplifying the "thief" accusation was highly damaging and baseless, as MBI was never fined directly and Sanusi was never prosecuted.
Appearing with Mohd Faizi Che Abu, Yusfarizal also dismissed claims of fund misappropriation regarding the Marris allocations.
He said transferring surplus funds had been standard practice under prior state administrations, and that the state auditor had merely noted the transaction without issuing an adverse finding, while Sanusi formally sought MOF permission to redeploy the funds for state infrastructure.
There was no misappropriation of funds so there was no governance issue, he stressed.
Defending the quantum of damages, Yusfarizal said the RM600,000 global award — comprising general, aggravated and exemplary damages — was appropriate, citing precedents set in the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Kepala Batas MP Dr Siti Mastura Muhammad vs Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng and Teresa Kok, where damages of RM300,000 were awarded to Kit Siang, RM250,000 to Guan Eng and RM200,000 to Kok over a single statement.
“In Saifuddin’s case, he uttered two different, unrelated defamatory statements. We are not cross-appealing on the quantum; the award of RM600,000 should stand,” he said.
When the bench observed that Sanusi had retained his seat with an increased majority — suggesting that the remarks may not have swayed the election outcome — Yusfarizal said the sting of the words alone carries a defamatory meaning, as rightly held by the High Court.
In his rebuttal, Razlan reiterated that RM72 million in federal Marris funds had been transferred and spent on general state development during Sanusi's tenure.
Azhahari, who sat with judges Datuk Ong Chee Kwan and Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Harun, said the bench needed time to arrive at a decision and fixed Friday (Oct 16) for case management.