Muhyiddin gets interim injunction against Puad Zarkashi over defamatory statements

Muhyiddin’s lawyer Rosli Dahlan said High Court judge Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril allowed the ex-parte application by Muhyiddin this afternoon in the presence of his two other lawyers, Datuk D.P. Naban and Louis Liaw.

“The writ of summons was filed this morning with a certificate of urgency to hear a notice of application for interim injunction. The High Court Judge granted an interim injunction pending disposal of the inter-parte hearing which was fixed on March 12,” he told Bernama via WhatsApp message.

In his ex-parte application filed with the writ of summons today, Muhyiddin applied for an injunction order to restrain Mohd Puad as the defendant, or his agent, representative or anyone from re-publishing, re-posting and re-sharing the allegedly defamatory statements on Mohd Puad’s Facebook page.

Muhyiddin filed the application on grounds that the statements by Mohd Puad are false, defamatory and had tarnished the reputation and the good name of the prime minister locally and internationally.

Muhyiddin said the ex-parte application was needed because if a notice was served to the defendant, there would be a risk that the defendant would sensationalise the application which would result in his readers sharing the post.

Meanwhile, Muhyiddin who filed the writ of summons and statement of claims through Messrs Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership in his personal capacity, claimed that on Feb 9, Mohd Puad had published a post on his Facebook page under the name of “DrPuad Zarkashi” with the title “Kuarantin pun ada dua darjat?”.

Muhyiddin claimed that the post could be accessed by Internet users across the world and had received 1,200 reactions, 215 comments and 182 shares.

He claimed that the post referred to “PM” which is an abbreviation for the Prime Minister and that the post contained untrue, unwarranted, unsubstantiated and mischievous remarks against him and have defamed him.

Muhyiddin claimed that the statements implied that he and his entourage had refused to undergo quarantine for 10 days upon their return from their official trip to Jakarta, Indonesia.

Apart from that, Muhyiddin claimed that the statements also implied that his refusal to be quarantined was due to the new instruction issued by the Minister of Health through the Federal Gazette that Cabinet ministers returning from official visits abroad would only be required to undergo quarantine for three days and thus overruled the instruction of the Health Director-General (DG) under Act 342 (Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988).

“It also implied that the plaintiff had refused to adhere to the instructions of the Health DG, provisions under Act 342 and the Movement Control Order, had abused his power to enable the Cabinet minister to undergo only three days of quarantine which contravened the Health DG’s instructions, and showed no concern over public health,” he said.

Muhyiddin claimed that following the defendant’s post, the defamatory statements had also been published by several news portals, including that of Sinar Harian and MalaysiaGazette, and that the defendant had, on Feb 19, made another post on his Facebook page after the prime minister sent a legal letter demanding a public apology and compensation of RM10 million.

He further claimed that Mohd Puad had, at 7.44 am on Feb 21, published on the same Facebook page the third post asking “when Muhyiddin will make another trip overseas?”, and the fourth at 8.17 am on Feb 23, “inviting him for a debate”.

According to the plaintiff, on Feb 9, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in a statement strongly denied claims made by Mohd Puad and explained that Muhyiddin had been handed the home surveillance order and given the observation wristband to wear as soon as he arrived from Jakarta on Feb 5 and that he (Muhyiddin) was undergoing quarantine at home.

The PMO, in the statement, had said that legal action would be taken against Mohd Puad if he failed to make a public apology over the matter.

“The PMO has also asked the defendant to apologise publicly and immediately but until today, the defendant had refused to do so. The defendant also failed to communicate with the PMO to verify the information in the statements before publishing it,” he said.

Muhyiddin is seeking general, exemplary and aggravated damages as well as an order for the defendant to issue a public apology according to the terms to be determined by the plaintiff as well as an order for the news portal and social media that has published the defamation to also publish the apology to the prime minister.