The Malaysian Insight

CLARE Rewcastle-Brown, publisher Chong Ton Sin and printing company Vinlin Press Sdn Bhd today filed a notice of appeal against a high court decision last Friday, which ruled that they must appear in court to defend themselves in a defamation suit brought by Sultanah Nur Zahirah of Terengganu.

Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim ruled last week that elements of defamation were proven in the suit over allegations in Rewcastle-Brown’s book: The Sarawak Report: The Inside Story of the 1MDB Expose, published in September last year.

Zaid further ruled the sultanah need not appear in court because she had proven defamation.

Nur Zahirah is claiming general damages of RM300 million from the three defendants, who filed at Kuala Lumpur High Court today for the matter to be heard at the Court of Appeal.

“We have instructions to lodge an appeal,” Rewcastle-Brown’s lawyer Americk Sidhu told The Malaysian Insight.

“Rewcastle-Brown’s legal team feels the judge erred in his decision for a variety of different and fundamental reasons,” said the lawyer, representing all three defendants.

The appeal focuses on a passage appearing on Page 3 of the book, which the sultanah alleges is defamatory.

In the notice of appeal, sighted by The Malaysian Insight, the defendants opposed the application on the following grounds:

1. The passage did not refer to the sultanah but to the sultan.

2. If no reference is established, then one of the elements necessary to establish defamation is absent and so the case cannot be proved.

3. The impugned passage is not defamatory in any event.

4. The law says a defamation action cannot be “bifurcated”, which means it should not be decided in phases.

5. The questions posed by the plaintiff (the sultanah) are in effect questions of fact and not law and therefore cannot be decided under an Order 14A of Rules of Court 2012 application.

The passage at the centre of the case reads:

“In April, he (Low) had netted himself an official advisory role at the newly set-up sovereign wealth fund designed to invest the oil revenues from the Malaysian State of Terengganu (since elections in this oil state had just been won by the opposition, BN was ruthlessly looking for ways to divert its revenues into a federally controlled entity).

“Jho (Low) was also friendly with a key player in Terengganu, the wife of the sultan, whose acquiescence was needed to set up the fund and he later cited her support as having been crucial to his obtaining the advisory position. This was the fund that would shortly be converted into the scandalous entity known as 1MDB…”

In the second edition of her book published soon after, the words the “sultan’s wife” was changed to the “sultan’s sister”.

Americk maintains that the passage referred to the sultan: “This is how an ordinary reasonable reader proficient in the English language would interpret the sentence.”

“We obtained an affidavit from an English professor to establish this. His was not expert evidence but the evidence of an ordinary reasonable reader proficient in the English language. His evidence was not refuted.”

Americk said the defendants are also concerned about the order made by the judge that the sultanah need not appear at the trial to give evidence under oath.

“We feel this is an erroneous order for the following reasons,” said Americk.

“The plaintiff did not apply for such an order, a judge has no authority to decide who can and can’t give evidence and the defendants would like to cross-examine the plaintiff.”

Americk added that Zaid’s judgment was made orally and there is yet a full judgment available from the court.

Rewcastle-Brown last week was not happy with the court’s decision and the lawsuit itself, saying it could have been “amicably resolved”.

“I’m sad that this case has carried on with the sultanah demanding RM300 million. Sadly, I’m not in the position to pay for her charitable causes.

“I am further saddened that my efforts in uncovering the scandal in 1MDB have rewarded me with actions like this,” she added. – December 19, 2019.