Court strikes out Pua and Loke's defamation suit against Tajuddin

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has struck out a defamation suit filed by Damansara MP Tony Pua and Transport Minister Anthony Loke against Pasir Salak MP Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman over allegations the DAP planned to abolish the monarchy system.

The case was struck out after Judicial Commissioner Latifah Mohd Tahar decided to allow Tajuddin's application in chambers.

In her ruling, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy that the defendant had effected defamation.

Lawyer Farhan Haziq, who represented the plaintiffs Loke and Pua, said the court did not make any orders as to costs.

"Our cause of action is on libel, so the court was of the view that we did not plead in our statement of claim that the defendant caused the publications (of the alleged defamatory statement)," he said.

On May 8, Tajuddin filed to strike out the lawsuit on grounds that the words he uttered did not refer to the plaintiffs' post or profession.

Pua and Loke had on March 20 filed the suit against Tajuddin over a speech he made in Kampung Jawa on the eve of the Sungai Kandis by-election on Aug 3, 2018.

They claimed that in his speech, Tajuddin said that they were Christians and, together with their colleagues in DAP, were working to spread the religion and abolish the monarchy system.

Pua and Loke claimed Tajuddin had alleged they were attempting to establish a system of government without a constitutional monarchy akin to Singapore.

They said Tajuddin's speech was reported by news portal Malaysiakini on the same day with the title "Tajuddin fires 'Christian DAP' salvo to close BN's Sg Kandi's campaign" and was shared 9,400 times.

In their statement of claim, Pua and Loke also claimed that Tajuddin's statement implied that they were using their position to advance personal political agenda.

They also claimed that the speech by Tajuddin was made with malicious intent to tarnish their reputation in politics and therefore sought an injunction to stop him from publishing the defamatory words apart from issuing an apology.

They sought general, aggravated and exemplary damages, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.