KUALA LUMPUR: Bukit Aman CID is still in the midst of its investigation into anti-graft activist Lalitha Kunaratnam.
When contacted, Federal CID director Comm Datuk Seri Abd Jalil Hassan confirmed that its Special Investigations Unit was still conducting its investigations into the case.
"The Sentul report which was lodged on Feb 9 has been classified as no further action (NFA) by the Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) and has no connection with our probe.
"For verification on that case please contact CCID," he said.
Bukit Aman CID was conducting its investigations into Lalitha under Section 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 505 of the Penal Code.
In the report, which was filed on Feb 9, MACC claimed that Lalitha had made a false claim regarding her status as a researcher with the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4).
Lalitha claimed on Feb 4 that the information shared in her articles and tweets concerning the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki were extracted from confirmed sources.
She made the claim in her statement of defence as the defendant in the defamation lawsuit filed by Azam against her.
The statement of defence was filed through Messrs Ibrahim & Fuaadah on Thursday (Feb 3) and was made available to the press on Friday (Feb 4).
"The defendant has reported the articles based on what she had extracted from confirmed sources and summed the information accurately, fairly and in a neutral way.
"The defendant pleads that it is essential in the public interest for the public (of which its readers are composed) to receive frank and uninhibited communication of particular information," the statement said.
On Jan 12, Azam, 59, filed a lawsuit against Lalitha for allegedly publishing defamatory articles against him in the Independent News Service (INS) news agency portal related to the allegations of him purchasing stock markets shares in 2015.
Azam’s statement of claim stated that the defendant had written two articles titled 'Business Ties Among MACC Leadership: How Deep Does It Go? (Part 1)' and 'Business Ties Among MACC Leadership: How Deep Does It Go? (Part Two)' that she published in INS on Oct 26 and republished on Dec 15 last year.
He claimed that the defendant had shared links to the articles on her Twitter account @LalithaVelvet that were still accessible to this day.