Najib's defamation case: Malaysiakini withdraws application to recuse JC

Malaysiakini and two others have withdrawn their application to recuse Judicial Commissioner (JC) Datuk Wira Kamaludin Md Said from hearing Datuk Seri Najib Razak's defamation case against them.

Counsel Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun who represented the UMNO president, and UMNO executive secretary Datuk Ab Rauf Yusoh, who is also a plaintiff in the case, disclosed this to reporters after the proceedings Friday.

He said the defendants, Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd; Malaysiakini.com editor-in-chief Steven Gan; and its chief editor Fathi Aris Omar, had withdrawn the application as Kamaludin had been appointed as a judge.

He further disclosed that Justice Kamaludin had ordered the defendants to pay RM3,000 in costs to the two plaintiffs.

"The judge also ordered the defendants to file their statement of defence within one month from today," he said.

The case was heard in chambers, in which the defendants were represented by counsel R. Vimalan.

On June 24, the defendants filed the application on grounds of a real danger of bias as JCs were appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the Chief Justice.

They contended that JCs did not enjoy security of tenure as there was no certainty that they would be appointed as High Court judges.

Kamaludin was made a judge on Sept 12.

On May 30, Najib filed the suit in his personal capacity, and Ab Rauf, on behalf of UMNO.

They claimed that the defendants had reported, produced and allowed the publishing on May 14, of two articles titled, 'A case of the PM reaping what he sows', and 'How much will Najib spend to keep Terengganu?'.

The plaintiffs claimed that the articles were carried in the 'Yoursay' column of www.malaysiakini.com.

Najib and Ab Rauf claimed that the defendants had deliberately allowed the publication of the articles despite knowing they contained baseless accusations and untruths.

The defamatory words had allegedly tarnished Najib's reputation as a politician, as UMNO president and as prime minister.

The two plaintiffs said the comments implied sarcasm to indicate that UMNO was incompetent as a political body and as the backbone of Barisan Nasional.

They claimed that as a result of the publication of the articles, their reputation was severely tarnished when UMNO was condemned, particularly in the social media and mass media.

They are seeking aggravated, excessive, general and special damages, interests and an injunction to restrain the defendants or their assistants from publishing the articles.

The plaintiffs also want a written apology from the defendants, to be published in the newspapers, and costs.