RK Nathan J:

Facts

The plaintiff was the former Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Deputy President of UMNO, the main component party of the Barisan Nasional (the ruling party) of Malaysia. He filed this suit against the Prime Minister of Malaysia for defamation.

Case Of The Plaintiff

It is the plaintiff's case that on 22 September 1998, the defendant, at his office in Kuala Lumpur, falsely and maliciously spoke and published to a crowd of journalists from both the national and the international media of and concerning the plaintiff and accused the plaintiff of homosexuality. The plaintiff prayed for:

(1) damages amounting to RM100,000,000 which included aggravated and/or exemplary damages with interest;

(2) an injunction restraining the defendant by himself or by his servants or agents from further uttering the offending words or words to the like effect of or concerning the plaintiff; and

(3) any other relief the court found just and proper.

The words uttered by the defendant which the plaintiff finds offensive have been pleaded in the amended statement of claim and they are as follows:

I had disbelieved the homosexuality charges at first but was convinced when I personally interviewed Anwar's partner.

They had not only performed sodomy, but during the process, he was ... I don't know how you call it ... he was masturbating this man.

Do I go around town and tell the world that this is what my deputy was doing?

Case For The Defendant

Whilst admitting to making a press statement on the day in question when various questions were posed to him by the media including why the plaintiff was dismissed as the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Deputy President of UMNO, the defendant said the following words which have been pleaded in the defence:

It is difficult for me to explain and I think it will be difficult for them to explain. I'll tell you what the police tells me ... (Dr. Munawar) Anwar ... Anees told them. They had not only performed sodomy but during the process he was doing ... he was ... I don't know what you call it, he was masturbating this man. This is what ... do I go around the town and tell the world that this is what my deputy was doing? And yet he did it. I mean, I cannot understand how a man would invent a story like that but this is what he told me, he told the police. He didn't tell me, he told the police. Their behaviour was despicable. And this is a man who talks about other people being despicable. His behaviour was despicable.

The defendant contended that his statement was based on matters that were already of public knowledge and on information related to him by the Police and that they are true in substance and in fact. He maintained that as the Prime Minister of the country he had a duty to the public who elected him and his party to explain the reasons for the dismissal of the plaintiff from the various positions. He also relied on the defence of qualified privilege.

The Application

This is the defendant's application to strike out the indorsement in the Amended Writ of Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to the provisions of O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC) and also under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Findings Of The Court Words Spoken By The Defendant

Before I consider the import of the words spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff it is pertinent to note certain relevant antecedent events which precipitated the calling of the press conference on 22 September 1998.

Dr. Munawar Ahmad Anees (Munawar)

On 19 September 1998 Munawar pleaded guilty in the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur in case No. 62-134-1998, and was convicted under s. 377D of the Penal Code for allowing the plaintiff to sodomise him. Munawar was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The facts relating to the said charge as read out in court and which the said Munawar admitted to were as follows: (i) The accused, Munawar, i