Court of Appeal affirms RM750K award in Siti Mastura defamation case
3 HOURS AGO
Faisal Asyraf
A three-member bench unanimously says there is no merit to her appeal
Siti Mastura Muhammad appealed a judgment in favour of Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, and Teresa Kok, handed down by the Penang High Court in December 2024.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today upheld a High Court ruling ordering PAS MP Siti Mastura Muhammad to pay RM750,000 in damages for defaming three senior DAP leaders.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid, who sat with Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, unanimously dismissed her appeal.
Delivering the decision, Kamal said the court found no merit in her appeal and upheld the Penang High Court’s Dec 4, 2024 judgment in full.
The panel also dismissed the trio’s cross-appeal on the quantum of damages, which they contended was inadequate.
The court made no order as to costs to both appeal and cross-appeal.
Siti Mastura was found to have defamed Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, and Teresa Kok by linking them to former Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng through alleged family ties during a political speech in Kemaman, Terengganu, on Nov 4, 2023.
The Penang High Court ruled in favour of the trio, awarding RM300,000 to Kit Siang, RM250,000 to Guan Eng, and RM200,000 to Kok.
Justice Quay Chew Soon also ordered Siti Mastura to pay RM25,000 in costs to each plaintiff, with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment.
On the defence of fair comment, Justice Ahmad Kamal said the panel agreed with the High Court that the impugned words were not opinions but assertions of fact, and “manifestly false”.
The panel noted that Mastura had made a series of specific factual allegations linking the DAP trio to Chin Peng as well as Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, by asserting direct familial ties.
“In the context of Malaysian society, to label a person or imply that they are affiliated with a banned communist party – an enemy of the state and a threat to national security and the Federal Constitution – is undeniably defamatory.
“Such statements go to the very heart of a person’s loyalty, integrity, and reputation,” he said, adding that a defence of fair comment could not be built on false facts.
On justification, the court found that Mastura failed to prove the truth of her claims.
It noted that her reliance on a book allegedly linked to Barisan Nasional’s communications department was flawed as the source lacked any identifiable author, publisher, or date, and its maker was not called to testify.
“A defendant cannot simply regurgitate unverified information from an anonymous source and claim it as truth.
“To do so is reckless and irresponsible,” the judge said.
On qualified privilege, the court rejected the argument that the statements were made pursuant to a political duty during an election campaign.
It held that the defence required an honest belief in the truth of the publication, supported by reasonable steps to verify the information.
Applying established principles, the panel found that Mastura had failed to take such steps, particularly by not seeking the plaintiffs’ response.
The court also upheld the finding of malice, pointing to the defendant’s conduct before and after publication.
It noted that she neither retracted nor apologised, and instead stood by her statements.
Yusfarizal Yusoff represented Mastura while SN Nair acted for the DAP trio.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid, who sat with Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, unanimously dismissed her appeal.
Delivering the decision, Kamal said the court found no merit in her appeal and upheld the Penang High Court’s Dec 4, 2024 judgment in full.
The panel also dismissed the trio’s cross-appeal on the quantum of damages, which they contended was inadequate.
The court made no order as to costs to both appeal and cross-appeal.
Siti Mastura was found to have defamed Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, and Teresa Kok by linking them to former Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng through alleged family ties during a political speech in Kemaman, Terengganu, on Nov 4, 2023.
The Penang High Court ruled in favour of the trio, awarding RM300,000 to Kit Siang, RM250,000 to Guan Eng, and RM200,000 to Kok.
Justice Quay Chew Soon also ordered Siti Mastura to pay RM25,000 in costs to each plaintiff, with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment.
On the defence of fair comment, Justice Ahmad Kamal said the panel agreed with the High Court that the impugned words were not opinions but assertions of fact, and “manifestly false”.
The panel noted that Mastura had made a series of specific factual allegations linking the DAP trio to Chin Peng as well as Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, by asserting direct familial ties.
“In the context of Malaysian society, to label a person or imply that they are affiliated with a banned communist party – an enemy of the state and a threat to national security and the Federal Constitution – is undeniably defamatory.
“Such statements go to the very heart of a person’s loyalty, integrity, and reputation,” he said, adding that a defence of fair comment could not be built on false facts.
On justification, the court found that Mastura failed to prove the truth of her claims.
It noted that her reliance on a book allegedly linked to Barisan Nasional’s communications department was flawed as the source lacked any identifiable author, publisher, or date, and its maker was not called to testify.
“A defendant cannot simply regurgitate unverified information from an anonymous source and claim it as truth.
“To do so is reckless and irresponsible,” the judge said.
On qualified privilege, the court rejected the argument that the statements were made pursuant to a political duty during an election campaign.
It held that the defence required an honest belief in the truth of the publication, supported by reasonable steps to verify the information.
Applying established principles, the panel found that Mastura had failed to take such steps, particularly by not seeking the plaintiffs’ response.
The court also upheld the finding of malice, pointing to the defendant’s conduct before and after publication.
It noted that she neither retracted nor apologised, and instead stood by her statements.
Yusfarizal Yusoff represented Mastura while SN Nair acted for the DAP trio.
No comments:
Post a Comment