JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 1)
Introduction
[1] In a nutshell:
1.1 There are two suits involving similar parties with similar issues:
(a) Suit WA-23CY-53-10/2019, (Suit 53), and
(b) Suit WA-23CY-70-12/2019, (Suit 70).
(c) Both suits are by Dr Zakir Naik against Ramasamy. Both cases are grounded on alleged acts of defamation committed by the latter against the former on four (4) separate libellous and one (1) slanderous occasion.
1.2 Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik (Dr Zakir), the plaintiff, is a permanent resident of Malaysia.
1.3 The defendant, Ramasamy Palaniasamy (Ramasamy), was the Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang at the time of the alleged tortuous offences.
[2] In Suit 53, Dr Zakir claimed Ramasamy had maliciously libelled him on three (3) separate occasions (10 April 2016, 1 October 2017, 9 August 2019), while on 20 August 2019, maliciously slandered him in an online interview on India Today:
2.1 Dr Zakir contended that the four defamatory publications were unsupported, were published with malice, hatred, envy, and spite, had disparaged, and ridiculed him to the general public, and as a result, has caused him losses and damage.
2.2 In Suit 70, Dr Zakir claimed Ramasamy had maliciously libelled him by publishing defamatory materials on 8 November 2019. Dr Zakir took the legal position that the publications, in their natural and ordinary meaning, are defamatory of him that had been published and republished.
2.3 Ramasamy, in denying the two foregoing suits, argued:
(a) For Suit 53:
(i) The defence of justification and fair comment applies to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defamatory publications, and
(ii) In the alternative, claimed qualified privilege as it was raised for public concern and interest.
(b) For Suit 70:
(i) The defence of justification and fair comment applies to the defamatory publication, and