March 21 for hearing of Najib's application to include MACC and AG's statements

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's application to amend the statement of claim in his lawsuit against Harakah and Harakahdaily relating to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) will be heard by the High Court on March 21. His lawyer Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said the plaintiff wanted to include two statements refuting the prime minister's involvement in 1MDB, which were issued by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in August last year and Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in January this year.

"The MACC had stated that the RM2.6 billion is not from 1MDB and the AG in his statement said the RM2.6 billion is a donation and that the prime minister is not involved in SRC's case," he said.

He also said the two defendants in the case, Harakah managing director Dr Rosli Yaakop and Harakahdaily editor-in-chief Taufek Yahya had engaged Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan who is also PAS secretary-general and Wan Rohimi Wan Daud as their new lawyers.

"In light of this new development, the court has vacated the trial dates fixed for March 16 till March 22," he told reporters after case management before justice Datuk Hue Siew Kheng in chambers today.

The defendants were previously represented by lawyer Mohamed Hanipa Mydin and Faiz Fadzil.

Mohd Hafarizam said if the court allowed the application to include the two statements, he would discuss with his client whether to apply to the court to summarily dispose off the suit by way of point of law without going for full trial.

On March 18 last year, the prime minister sued Rosli and Taufek over the publication of an article written by Rosli on Feb 19 the same year regarding 1MDB.

In his statement of claim, Najib said the article had imputed that he had misused 1MDB funds.

He claimed that the article was intended to tarnish his reputation, and had caused him to be condemned by the people through social media and the mass media.

Najib also claimed that Taufek failed to practice responsible journalism by not verifying whether what had been written in the article was truthful before publishing it.

The Prime Minister further claimed that the defendants had purposely published the article for personal agenda, which was to destroy the people's confidence in him.

He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest as well as an injunction to stop the defendants or their assistants from further publishing the article.