Khairul’s suit against Rafizi dismissed

KUALA LUMPUR: A High Court has thrown out a defamation suit filed by Umno Youth vice-chief Khairul Azwan Harun against PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli relating to Majlis Amanah Rakyat’s (Mara) property purchase in Australia.

In an immediate response, Rafizi said it was a good judgment for people who work for public interest.

His lead counsel William Leong said the judgment recognised that his client could protect the identities of whistleblowers.

Yesterday, High Court judge Justice S. Nantha Balan held that the press release issued by Rafizi on July 6 last year over the property purchase did not defame Khairul Azwan.

Justice Nantha Balan said the press release did not suggest that Khairul Azwan was guilty of corruption or abuse of power.

He said the statement suggested that there were reasonable grounds for “investigations to be conducted and that Khairul Azwan, who was politically or commercially connected or affiliated to some of the individuals named in the press release, should come forward and render an explanation as regards the property transaction”.

In his suit filed in July last year, Khairul Azwan said Rafizi, who is also National Oversight and Whistleblowers executive director, held a press conference at its office in Sungai Besi on July 6, 2015, to distribute slanderous and false statements against him.

He said the statements questioned his alleged involvement in the purchase and business dealings of 746 Swanston Street property by a company wholly owned by Mara Inc, Thrushcross Land Holdings Limited.

In his statement of claim, Khairul Azwan said the words implied that he was corrupt and acted for his own financial interest.

Justice Nantha Balan said “the issue of irregularities pertaining to the property transactions is most certainly not a figment of Rafizi’s fertile and vivid imagination”.

The judge said there was enough evidence to demonstrate there was a prima facie case for an investigation to be carried out to determine the identities of those involved in the property transactions.

“I am in no doubt at all that the defendant was actuated by nothing more than a public spirited duty to disclose wrongdoings involving public funds and to be a catalyst for public discussion over these matters so that explanations are forthcoming and investigations may be carried out by those whose duty is to explain or carry out investigations,” he said.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay Rafizi RM73,000 in costs, which included payment involved to get certain documents from Australia.