Court dismisses Rafizi's preliminary objection in LTAT lawsuit

The High Court here today dismissed Mohd Rafizi Ramli's preliminary objection against the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT)'s failure to file its affidavit in-reply promptly.

Lawyer Saiful Izham Ramli who represented the Pandan member of parliament said the objection was submitted under Order 32 rule 12(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012.

He said the court admitted that there was a confusion in an order it made during case management on Aug 12 last year concerning the date for LTAT to file the document.

"In that regard, the court dismissed Mohd Rafizi's preliminary objection and accepted LTAT's reply affidavit," he told reporters after a proceeding conducted in chambers before judicial commissioner Datuk Roslan Abu Bakar.

Saiful Izham said the High Court also set Feb 16 to hear Mohd Rafizi's application to strike out part of LTAT's statement of claim.

Lawyer Izzat Othman who represented LTAT confirmed the matter.

On May 6, 2016, LTAT sued Mohd Rafizi for a statement he made on its gratuity payment to Armed Forces retirees. It alleged, the statement was intended to tarnish the board's good image, integrity and reputation.

It is seeking general and exemplary damages, and an injunction to restrain the defendant or his agents from publishing or broadcasting the alleged defamatory statement again.

In its statement of claim, LTAT alleged that Mohd Rafizi had disparaged it in his blog and facebook on March 21, 2016 with a writeup titled, 'Bayaran gratuiti pesara angkatan tentera lewat; LTAT perlu dedahkan risiko kewangan akibat 1MDB'.

It also alleged that on March 24, 2016, Mohd Rafizi issued a statement that appeared in the Malaysiakini website titled, 'Rafizi: I have document showing LTAT's link to 1MDB'.

It further alleged that on March 28, 2016, Mohd Rafizi made another disparaging statement in his facebook, titled, 'Laporan ketua audit negara ke atas 1MDB mengesahkan kesan masalah kewangan 1MDB ke atas LTAT'.

The plaintiff alleged Mohd Rafizi through his statements was saying indirectly or sarcastically that LTAT had failed to look after the retirees' interest and welfare and had no money to pay them gratuity. - BERNAMA