KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 — The High Court here today dismissed a defamation suit filed by Pasir Salak Member of Parliament (MP) Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman against Shah Alam MP Khalid Abd Samad, The New Straits Time Press (M) Berhad (NSTP) and KiniTV Sdn Bhd, in relation to defamatory statements at a press conference at the Parliament lobby, six years ago.

Judicial Commissioner Datuk Seri Latifah Mohd Tahar made the ruling after finding that the statements made by Khalid as the first defendant were not defamatory and were made based on justification, reasonable comments and conditional protection.

 "The second (NSTP) and third (KiniTV) defendants have made bona fide (good faith) publications on matters of public interest and the publications made are fair and accurate. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim against all defendants is dismissed with no order as to cost as this was a matter of public interest,” she said.

Latifah, in her judgment, said that Khalid’s comments followed the outrageous behaviour of the plaintiff (Tajuddin) during the proceedings in Parliament, by using unparliamentary statements against Seputeh MP Teresa Kok Suh Sim.

She said this was supported by the testimony of the witnesses of the MPs who testified in court during the trial.

"The court was also satisfied that the statements made by the first defendant at the first press conference were reasonable comments and without malice, which were based on facts that were in the knowledge of the first defendant himself,” she said.

Latifah said the case stemmed from the plaintiff’s (Tajuddin) behaviour in Parliament on November 21, 2016, where he had issued a sexist statement and used unparliamentary language in his speech against the Seputeh MP that caused dissatisfaction among opposition MPs, especially Khalid.

She said the court was of the view that there was no need for the plaintiff to express vulgar words against the Seputeh MP. They were uttered without provocation and had nothing to do with the ongoing debate at that time.

"While replying to reporters, the plaintiff stated that he mentioned the name of Teresa Kok’s family and there was no other motive. The plaintiff’s rationale that he was merely referring to the Seputeh MP’s family name was not founded, given the entire context of the matter,” she said.

She also said that the plaintiff’s action of refusing to retract the sexist statement and insulting and mocking the opposition MPs had provoked Khalid. 

She also added that the court was of the view that the alleged defamatory statements by the first defendant (Khalid) were not defamation if taken in the context of the time and the word "sial” (cursed) used by the first defendant was a result of the plaintiff’s provocation.

Latifah said the statement made by the plaintiff who was then the deputy minister of agriculture and agro-based industries, was inappropriate and tarnished the institution of Parliament which is one of the highest institutions in the country.

She said the court was also of the view that freedom of speech and protection of reputation, especially in a Parliamentary session, should be given attention even if immunity is granted.

The court also agreed that the action of the second defendant (NSTP) only reported on the incident fairly and was not defamatory as there was reasonable justification for the report made as they were protected under qualified privilege, she said.

As for the third defendant (KiniTV), which broadcast two videos of the said press conference on November 24, 2016, she said the court was satisfied that there was no defamatory nature in the videos.

"The coverage in the videos by the third defendant was neutral and it is the professional, journalistic responsibility to report the news in a neutral and fair manner especially when it concerns public interest,” said Latifah, who made the decision via email today.

On April 26, 2017, Tajuddin filed the suit, claiming that Khalid had uttered defamatory statements, as well as using curse words, against him at two media conferences held by Khalid at the Parliament Lobby on November 21 and 21, 2016.

Tajuddin claimed that the first statement by Khalid, was published in NSTP’s newspaper, the New Straits Times, with the title "Fury over Deputy Minister’s Remark” on November 22, 2016, and the second statement by KiniTV on November 24, 2016.

He claimed both the statements were also available on YouTube, which could be accessed by the public.

Tajuddin also claimed that the two statements, among others, meant that he was not fit to be an MP and had acted against the teachings and culture of Islam. — Bernama