Utusan ordered to pay RM120,000 to Mahfuz

Seven years after filing a suit, PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar won his civil suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today against Utusan Malaysia with the court awarding him RM120,000 in general damages.

In his judgment, judicial commissioner Mohd Yazid Mustafa found the article to be defamatory, adding that it was not the truth as Mahfuz had denied making such comment.

"The court finds the article defamatory as it would lower the plaintiff's reputation as a politician," he said.

"The court could not accept the defence of justification could not be applied in this case."

The politician, 52, filed the suit on Dec 10, 2001, over an article published in the newspaper on March 3, 2001 titled `Demonstrasi - Mahfuz istihar bersama Keadilan' (Demonstration - Mahfuz declares to be with Keadilan).

The PAS information chief named the publisher Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd and its former group editor Khalid Mohamad as defendants.

Md Yazid, in his seven-page judgment, said that the article meant that Mahfuz had a political agenda of forcefully removing the present government, that he advocated violence of force in causing chaos and instability, and was a person who rejected the democratic process.

"The defendants are raising the defence of fair comment and justification. The plaintiff has denied making such statements to the defendants' journalist via telephone conference.

"It is trite law that the burden to prove the truth of the published words is on the defendant. Therefore, looking at the entire meaning of the published words, I find that it is defamatory of the plaintiff," the judicial commissioner said.

No justification, not a fair comment

Mohd Yazid said the fact that Mahfuz, now the member of parliament for Pokok Sena, was alleged to be volatile and a vocal political figure was not relevant because the issue for determination was whether the impugned words were uttered by the plaintiff.

This, he said, was necessary as the plaintiff (Mahfuz) denied making such statements.

"The defendant, I find has not only failed to establish justification for the words but failed to show the words were even said by the plaintiff.

"The contention that the journalist was an experienced and responsible professional in political news coverage is irrelevant based on the reason. The impugned words therefore, do not fulfil the elements of fair comment because there was no truthful basis to it," he added.

Mohd Yazid said the defendants have failed to establish how the public interest or which aspects of the public's interests was affected or could be affected by the said words.

"Lastly I find the words were published with the intention to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of a reasonable leader in the defendants' newspaper," he said.

On the amount of damages, the judicial commissioner said he was only granting general damages and in determining the quantum, the court took into consideration of the following facts:

"The plaintiff's standing in society as a political figure, a member of parliament and a public figure. Mahfuz is also a well-known figure among his peers and commands the respect of the latter.

"Secondly, the defendants' newspaper has a circulation of 200,000 papers per day including 800,000 visitors and 7.8 million page-viewers per month for its online publication. Therefore, the impugned words affecting the political and social standing and the reputation of the plaintiff were widely published," he said.

To compound matters, Mohd Yazid said the defendants had not tendered any apology to mitigate the harm to the plaintiff's reputation.

He also noted the trend in awarding defamation cases was conservative from the 1970s to 1980s and in 1995 the trend was to award a substantial amount that went up to millions of ringgit such as tycoon Vincent Tan's award.

"However the current trend starting from early 2000 has reverted to the conservative practice of granting smaller amounts. After considering the current trend in granting damages, I award the amount of RM120,000 as general damages," Mohd Yazid said.

Utusan to study the judgment

In his statement of claim, Mahfuz, who was the PAS Youth chief at the time of the news report, said that the article meant he supported the then Parti Keadilan Nasional (now PKR) to topple the government by using force.

He added that the article alluded that he was a leader who advocated the use of force and violence, and that he did not believe in the democratic process of using electoral process.

The article also reflected him to be a person who believes in overthrowing the government by the use of force and he was a person who was willing to jeopardise the security of the country.

He said the said article also allegedly meant he was against PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who did not agree in the advocating violence or force to topple the government.

In Utusan's defence, they argued it was justifiable to publish the article as they had contacted Mahfuz by phone for his comments. The daily also claimed the article was the truth in its fact and contents.

Utusan's counsel M Reza Hassan said they would study the grounds of judgment and possibly file the appeal.

Mahfuz who was represented by counsel Mohamed Hanipa Maidin said he was satisfied with the court's decision as what was important was his and PAS reputation.

"We truly support democratic means in politics and do not subscribe to such illegal means including street demonstrations to overthrow the government," he said.

Not the first for Umno-owned Utusan

This is not the first time that Umno-owned Utusan has been forced to pay hefty damages for defamation.

Last year, migrant-labour activist Irene Fernandez won her defamation suit against the Malay-language daily and was awarded RM200,000 in damages.

The decision came 11 years after she filed the suit against Utusan over an article published on Sept 20, 1995.

The article claimed that Fernandez had failed to cooperate with the police in their investigation into allegations in a memorandum.

At a press conference in August 1995, Fernandez had revealed allegations of alleged torture and deaths in Malaysian detention camps for illegal immigrants. This has led to a police investigation against her for spreading "false news".

In the suit, Fernandez had argued that the article was written with malice and that its meaning was that she was deliberately evading the police, was insincere and lacked integrity.

The article has also portrayed her as a disloyal citizen and cited her for treason for tarnishing the country’s image by bringing up these issues.

Meanwhile, Utusan is facing a slew of other lawsuits including two from Selangor senior exco and Seputeh parliamentarian Teresa Kok.

Kok today filed a RM30 million defamation suit against former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and Utusan over the azan controversy which led to her being arrested under the Internal Security Act.