NSTP ordered to pay RM100,000 to Anwar over a defamatory article.......

The High Court today ordered New Straits Times Press (M) to pay RM100,000 in damages to Anwar Ibrahim over a defamatory article published in 2002. The court also ordered the media giant to pay RM20,000 in costs to the PKR leader.

Earlier the court ruled that NSTP had defamed Anwar in its article published in the New Straits Times on March 2, 2002.
The article, titled 'Anwar's link to US lobbyist', claimed that the opposition leader had stashed RM3 billion in foreign accounts and had foreign links to Western interests. The article was based on a report which was carried in the New Republic magazine.

In making his decision, judicial commissioner Harminder Singh Dhaliwall said that NSTP could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege as the "article was sinister and more than a reproduction of the New Republic article".

"The said article is far more sinister than the reproduction," he said.

"Hence, the court finds the article to be libellous and the defendants have to pay the damages to the plaintiff (Anwar)," he added.

Anwar had sued New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd and its former group editor-in-chief Abdullah Ahmad for RM100 million over the defamatory article.

The NSTP article was based on another article - 'The Bush Administration's dubious envoy to Taiwan' - that was published in the political weekly magazine New Republic's March 2002 issue. Anwar filed the suit on July 4, 2003.

'Baseless imputation'

Harminder said he did not quite see how ordinary, right thinking members of the community would see Anwar as an American agent.

"The purpose of dialogues, as conceded by the plaintiff, was to build strong rapport with members of the Congress and United States government," said the judge, saying that using the APPC as a vehicle does not suggest anything sinister, illegal or immoral.

"I think the community will perceive dialogues to be an excellent way to exchange ideas or even influence the thinking of the people and the countries involved. To have dialogues to build rapport and to influence change is certainly better then waging wars as recent events bear testimony.

"Looking at it in this light, I do not think members of the community will see anything wrong with the government funding the dialogues. There cannot be anything defamatory about this. Certainly, the imputation about the plaintiff being an American agent is quite baseless."

Harminder said NSTP did not try to prove the truth of its article and asserted that it was unable to show accuracy. As well, Anwar was brought in to testify that there was no truth to the article, and he was not challenged on this.

"Anwar also called the former director of investigations of the Anti-Corruption Agency, Abdul Razak Idris who told the court that he supervised investigations on the contents and allegations stated in former assistant governor of Bank Negara Abdul Murad Khalid's statutory declaration. The investigations found the allegations were baseless and sustainable."

'Qualified privilege can't be used'

Harminder further held that the writer had not interviewed Anwar, who was in prison at the time.

"Apart from resorting to the Internet, she did not take other steps to locate Paal. She also admitted she did not interview Abdul Murad.

"Her response to this was that the article contained matters which had already been commented upon by government officials and also subject to extensive coverage by the media.

"She should have verified the accuracy of the New Republic article. Her reasons for not doing so are therefore unjustifiable and unsustainable and therefore cannot be accepted."

Harminder said there was no urgency for NSTP to print the article, as the story about APPC and Abdul Murad's statutory declaration was stale news.

"A response was necessary as there was only one side of the story available. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the article by the defendant was not a piece of responsible journalism to which the defence of qualified privilege is available," he added.

Anwar was represented by counsel Karpal Singh, Sankara Nair and Sangeet Kaur Deo, while NSTP was represented by Nad Segaram.

In an immediate response, Sankara said Anwar felt reprieved and vindicated by the judgment.

"The amount does not matter, as what is important is that he has to maintain his dignity and reputation. We will not appeal over the amount," he said.

Nad said he would get instructions from his client as to whether to appeal.

During the hearing, Abdul Razak had testified that Anwar had been cleared of having RM3 billion in foreign accounts, as stated in Abdul Murad's statutory declaration.

Despite this, various Umno leaders have continued to harp on the contents of the documents.

source:malaysiakini

Baca di sini.

cheers.