Defamation suit: I was only inviting Tuan Ibrahim to explain tender claims - Rafizi

Defamation suit: I was only inviting Tuan Ibrahim to explain tender claims - Rafizi


Rafizi Ramli has claimed that he was merely inviting then environment and water minister Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man for an explanation over the alleged approval of an RM2 billion project which was granted after Parliament was dissolved late last year.

The economy minister states this in his statement of defence against the PAS deputy president’s defamation suit. The defence was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Dec 28 last year.

The civil action was filed in November last year, following the PKR deputy president’s allegations that the caretaker government, through the now defunct Environment and Water Ministry, had tried to bulldoze the awarding of contracts worth billions for purported cronies.

According to the defence sighted by Malaysiakini, Rafizi (above, right) denied his statements - made during two press conferences at PKR headquarters at Petaling Jaya, Selangor, on Nov 7 and 9 last year - were defamatory or done in malice.

The defendant, who became the economy minister after winning the Pandan parliamentary seat in the 15th general election last November, contended he raised the issue for the purpose of public attention as well as healthy public discourse.

“The defendant states that the actual intent that the defendant made the media statements were to invite and/or encourage the plaintiff to give an explanation regarding the media statements and/or bring to public attention the issues of transparency by the authorities in awarding of contracts for projects and/or raise public awareness regarding management of government procurement during the caretaker period (following the dissolution of Parliament) and/or the issue of spending of public funds which is an issue of public interest,” Rafizi claimed.

The defendant claimed that he obtained information regarding communication and processes in awarding certain projects under the Environment and Water Ministry and that Tuan Ibrahim, as its then minister, needed to reply to the call for an explanation.

“The defendant’s effort does not have malicious intent. It is in line with the defendant’s right to voice out opinion and view as a politician, citizen and a taxpayer, and it is also safeguarded under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution,” Rafizi contended in reference to the fundamental right to free speech and expression under the said provision.

Nothing personal

“Furthermore and/or in the alternative, the defendant states that the ones who benefited from his media statements are the people and taxpayers and that it is wrong for the plaintiff to look at all of this from a narrow prism as though it is a personal issue between the defendant and the plaintiff and/or PAS,” Rafizi added.

In a reply filed on Jan 19, Tuan Ibrahim contended among others that Rafizi made false allegations in the defendant’s capacity as a politician and Pandan candidate during the GE15 campaigning period.

Tuan Ibrahim claimed this was strengthened by Rafizi’s alleged admission that he did not and had no intent to lodge a police report with MACC and would wait until his party won GE15 and formed the government.

“On that reason, it is nonsense for the defendant to say that the defendant did so (media statements) as a concerned citizen, when the facts clearly showed that it was made based on political consideration and benefit in the form of political mileage obtained by the defendant,” Tuan Ibrahim claimed.

Lawyers from law firm Yusfarizal Aziz & Zaid are acting for Tuan Ibrahim. Rafizi is represented by counsel from law firm Mohd Ashraf, Nik Zarith & Co.

The civil action is fixed for case management before the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning.

When contacted by the media after the case management, the plaintiff's counsel Yusfarizal Yussoff said the court has directed parties to file further documents.

The counsel said these are among others agreed facts, issues to be tried which are not to be more than five, list of witnesses and case chronology.

Yusfarizal said the court has set further case management on March 31.