Go for settlement, Tajuddin and defendants urged

KUALA LUMPUR: Parties in the suit filed by Deputy Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman against Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad and two others have been advised to seek a settlement.

Tajuddin filed the suit against Khalid, The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd and KiniTV Sdn Bhd over a series of press conferences in 2016.

Khalid’s lawyer K. Murali told reporters that High Court Judicial Commissioner Aliza Sulaiman had urged them to settle the matter.

So far, there has been no proposal from any party.

“The court also fixed hearings on Nov 1 and 2, as well as Dec 3 and 6,” Murali said after all sides met JC Aliza in chambers yesterday.

In the suit filed on April 26 last year, Tajuddin claimed that on Nov 21, 2016, Khalid held a press conference at the Parliament lobby and the statement was published as a YouTube video the same day.

The plaintiff said the defamatory statement implied that he was a person who had not followed the commands of Allah, was unfit to be an MP, was unfit to hold office as a deputy minister and was not a good Muslim.

Tajuddin, who is Pasir Salak MP, alleged that part of the statement was published by NSTP in the New Straits Times on Nov 22, 2016, in an article entitled “Fury Over Deputy Minister’s Remark”.

He said the defamatory statement had damaged his reputation and standing, resulting in public ridicule, odium and contempt.

A notice of demand was sent on Nov 23, 2016, seeking among others the retraction of the statements in the newspaper and an apology, he said.

Tajuddin claimed that Khalid, through his solicitors on Nov 28, indicated in a reply that he would not be apologising and denied that the statements were defamatory.

He said Khalid held a second press conference on Nov 24, 2016, at the Parliament lobby, in which his second statement was published by KiniTV as a video on the same day and remained available at its KiniTV and Malaysiakini’s sites.

Tajudin also claimed that the words in the second defamatory statement implied that he was a violent person who had resorted to sending his children, relatives and supporters to assault the defendant (Khalid).

He is claiming general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, cost and any other reliefs deemed fit by the court.