Ordered to pay Lim Guan Eng RM1.35 million for defamation by the High Court, what's next for Muhyiddin in the case?
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin faced some legal troubles again recently, but instead of criminal charges, the former Prime Minister was at the Kuala Lumpur High Court to hear the verdict on a defamation suit brought forth against him by his former Pakatan Harapan (PH) Cabinet member Lim Guan Eng.
In the judgement by High Court Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain on 8 November 2024, Muhyiddin was ordered to pay RM1.35 million in damages to Lim for defaming the Bagan Member of Parliament (MP) over the revocation of Albukhary Foundation tax exemption.
On 27 March last year, Lim filed the civil suit against Muhyiddin for three defamatory statements against him on Facebook, which was published on 9, 11 and 12 March 2023, implying Lim had allegedly abused his position and power as Finance Minister at the time by authorising or directing the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) to impose taxes and penalties on the charitable foundation, despite being exempted. Reports on Muhyiddin’s statements were subsequently published in several newspapers and news portal.
Muhyiddin has since retracted the three statements as ordered by the High Court, but in a statement, the former Prime Minister said that he was very disappointed in the outcome and has instructed his lawyers to appeal against the decision. He further asserted that he believed his statements were not defamatory and that he had a good defence to claim. Moreover, Muhyiddin said that the RM1.35 million damages awarded by the Court were excessive.
So, what will happen next in the civil suit? What possible defences can his legal team exert to overturn the decision and how many more chances does he have in appealing the civil suit?
Well, join us as we delve into the case in depth below.
The civil suit can be appealed up until the Federal Court
First up, given that the civil suit filed by Lim Guan Eng was first heard at the High Court, it can be appealed to the two higher court levels. In other words, Muhyiddin can appeal the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, which he has done so through his counsel Tetuan Chetan Jethwani & Company.
If the Appellate Court finds that there are plain errors in facts and/or law in the judgement by the High Court, the Court of Appeal will allow the appeal and overturn the High Court’s decision. Similarly, if Muhyiddin’s appeal to the Court of Appeal is dismissed, the former Pagoh MP has the right to have final recourse, which is to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision to the highest court and the final appellate court in Malaysia, the Federal Court.
However, do note that an appeal to the Federal Court is not as of right, whereby under Section 96 of the Court Judicature Act, a leave to appeal must be obtained from the Federal Court by posing a question of law which has to be decided for the first time and/or a question of importance where a Federal Court decision would give a public advantage. If the appeal doesn’t contain any of these criteria, it would be disallowed by the Federal Court.
The defamation suit’s main issues of contention
Should an appeal be allowed, the Court of Appeal will rehear the case by scrutinising all evidence led by parties (through a Record of Appeal filed by the appellant) before the High Court and decide whether the High Court’s decision was sound in law and/or in facts upon hearing submission by both parties.
In her judgement, Justice Roz Mawar asserted that Muhyiddin had resources at his disposal to verify whether his understanding was correct on facts. Yet, the former Prime Minister didn’t do so and continued to make defamatory statements against Llim after the latter had brought to his attention the falsity of such allegations in the defamatory statement.
Moreover, the High Court also found that Muhyiddin’s statements were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. Justice Roz Mawar added that Muhyiddin also deliberately infused his statements with religious and racial overtones, repeatedly highlighting the Al-Bukhary Foundation’s role in Islamic charitable work.
Besides that, the High Court also found that the Pagoh MP also failed to prove the truth of his allegations. Accordingly, Muhyiddin’s defence of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege were all unsustainable because his statements were not based on a true factual foundation.
As for the RM1.35 million sum, the High Court’s breakdown of the damages is as follows:
RM350,000 for each of the three statements
RM150,000 for aggravated damages
RM150,000 for exemplary damages
What is defamation?
With all of that established, let’s first explore briefly the laws on civil defamation that are relevant to the case. In Malaysia, the law of civil defamation is set out in the Defamation Act 1957, whereby criminal defamation is governed under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
For civil defamation, it is supplemented by Malaysian case law and English common law. Generally, a statement is considered defamatory if:
An individual’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society would be lowered by the statement
The statement exposes an individual to hatred ridicule or contempt
An individual’s business, trade, profession or calling is belittled by the statement
Besides that, defamation can either be libel or slander, depending on how the statement appears. Muhyiddin’s statements, which were published on social media, are considered libel as they are written statements, which are also sometimes known as ‘defamation in permanent form’. Meanwhile, slander is defamatory spoken statements or gestures, sometimes known as ‘defamation in temporary form’.
The High Court found that Muhyiddin’s statements were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, which means that according to the literal meanings of the words used, whether implied or indirect or any meaning based on general knowledge. Besides that, the use of innuendo can also be defamatory, which are seemingly ordinary words that are used but have special meaning for people with specific knowledge of the situation described.
Defences against defamation
There are several common defences against defamation, which Muhyididn’s counsel had used in the case, which are privilege, fair comment and justification.
There are two types of privilege as defence, which are absolute privilege and qualified privilege. Muhyiddin argued that he had qualified privilege in making the statement, which is a legal or moral duty to make the statement, or if they make the statement to further a legitimate common interest.
As for fair comment, it is a defence by establishing that the statement was an honest statement of one’s opinion relating to the public interest. In doing so, one must prove whether a ‘a fair-minded person would hold the opinion that I hold, based on the proven facts, and is it in the public interest to express that opinion?’
Meanwhile, the defence of justification is when the person who made the statement was justified in stating it if the statement was true. However, this doesn’t apply to the sincere belief that the statement is true if it turns out to be untrue.
Based on the High Court’s decision, Muhyiddin had failed in his defences in all three of the above as, based on the evidence at trial, there was no justification to make such defamatory statements as what Muhyiddin said was not true in fact.
Potential defences in the appeal
As the main issue of contention in the civil suit is the facts of Muhyiddin’s statements, one potential defence is proving that what he alleged was factual. In doing so, Muhyiddin can strengthen all three defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
Furthermore, he may also try to prove that there was no malice in his statements. In a defamation suit, if a statement is deemed to be malicious, the use of fair comment and qualified privilege are nullified. The High Court seems to allude that Muhyiddin’s statements were malicious as he was found to have deliberately infused his statements with religious and racial overtones.
Besides that, the former Prime Minister may also argue that the sum of damages awarded to Lim was excessive and appeal to reduce them.
Moving forward, all eyes would be on the civil suit should the appeal be brought before the Court of Appeal and/or Federal Court. Regardless of the outcome, let this civil suit be a lesson to everyone to not make any statements that could be defamatory to others.
For more insights into the Malaysian legal system such as this, do make sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram or visit our official website. You can also read our articles on the popular Malaysian news aggregator app Newswav here.
