Court postpones judgment on Najib-Pua case
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal yesterday postponed its judgment on an application by Petaling Jaya Utara member of parliament Tony Pua to cancel an interim injunction granted by the High Court.
The injunction was granted to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak against Pua to prevent the latter from repeating slanderous allegations.
The court, represented by a three-man panel comprising Datuk Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Puan Sri Zaleha Yusof and Datuk Yaacob Md Sam, ruled that it needed more time to deliver the verdict.
“We have to look through all the submissions and deliver the verdict at a later date,” Abang Iskandar said.
The injunction application, granted on Aug 4, would be in place until the case was over.
On April 21 last year, Najib filed the suit in his personal capacity against Pua over slanderous allegations the latter made in a live video on Facebook on the tabling of a private member’s bill to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, or RUU355.
Najib claimed the words in Pua’s video implied he abused his powers as prime minister by directing the cabinet, through the Dewan Rakyat speaker, to allow the tabling of amendments to the act by Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to divert attention on 1Malaysia Development Bhd matters.
In his statement of claim, Najib, as the plaintiff, accused Pua of making the statement at the Parliament lobby on April 6, which was recorded and uploaded by the defendant to his official Facebook page.
Najib was represented by counsel Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, while Pua, the defendant, by Gobind Singh Deo.
Both respondent and defendant were not present in court.
Hafarizam, in his submission, said the defendant’s allegation of collusion between his respondent, Barisan Nasional and Pas on RUU355 was an assumption that was strongly denied by the respondent.
Later, outside the courtroom, Hafarizam said: “On behalf of the respondent, we have submitted for the injunction to be maintained on grounds that the defence that was put forth by the defendant would fail or it is obviously untruthful.
“The court needs more time to look through the submission. Hopefully, the decision will be in my client’s favour for the injunction to be maintained, pending a full trial.
“The High Court judge ordered the injunction to stop all publication of the video on Najib because of the number of followers on the defendant’s Facebook, which could cause irreparable damage to my client.”