AZAM BAKI SUES BLOOMBERG FOR DEFAMATION, SEEKING RM100 MILLION DAMAGES

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 (Bernama) -- Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P. over an article published on Feb 10 concerning alleged share ownership, which he claims is defamatory.

The suit was filed through Messrs Zain Megat & Murad at the High Court here yesterday, naming Bloomberg L.P., headquartered at Lexington Avenue, New York, and its Malaysian subsidiary, Bloomberg (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, as the first and second defendants respectively.

According to the writ of summons and statement of claim, obtained by the media today, Azam is seeking RM100 million in general damages, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages, in addition to interest and costs.

He is also seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants, including their agents and employees, from publishing or republishing the words cited in the claim or any similar defamatory statements.

The plaintiff further requests that the alleged defamatory content be removed within three days from the date of judgment.

In addition, Azam is demanding a public apology, with the wording to be agreed upon in advance by his solicitors, to be published in newspapers and on social media platforms selected by him.

Azam alleged that at 8 am on Feb 10, the defendants published and caused to be published an article on Bloomberg.com titled “Malaysian Anti-Graft Chief Returns to Stocks After Outcry”, written by Niki Koswanage and Tom Redmond.

He claimed the article contained defamatory statements, including an allegation that, in his capacity as Chief Commissioner of the MACC, he owned 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd based on corporate filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM).

The article also allegedly stated, without evidence, that he had not publicly declared his assets.

Azam contended that the publication concerned the Malaysian public administration and touched on his role as a high-ranking civil servant.

He further stated that the article was accessible in Malaysia through subscriptions to the Bloomberg Terminal, which is used by customers, financial institutions and commercial entities in the country.

The plaintiff alleged that the statements conveyed the impression that he had abused his power and position or was involved in corrupt practices.

He also stated that prior to the publication, the defendants had contacted him for clarification on the matters they intended to report, and that he had provided a clear, detailed and reasonable explanation in response to their queries.

However, Azam claimed that the defendants failed and refused to fully consider the explanation he had provided, and instead proceeded to publish the article in a biased, sensational and misleading manner that created a false and negative impression of him.

He further alleged that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information before publication, including failing to conduct further checks, cross-verification and proper assessment of the information obtained.

In the statement of claim, Azam asserted that the defendants’ actions were contrary to the principles of responsible journalism and the provisions under Section 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which prohibit the publication of false or unverified news.

He contended that publishers have a duty to ensure that any material published is accurate, true and not misleading.

Azam also maintained that the defendants’ failure to undertake reasonable verification despite having the opportunity to do so amounted to gross negligence, reckless disregard for the truth and malice.

According to the plaintiff, the article implied, among other things, that he was a dishonest and untrustworthy public officer, had breached asset declaration regulations, abused his position as MACC Chief Commissioner for personal gain, and was involved in financial misconduct or dubious activities related to share ownership.

He further alleged that the article satirically suggested he had failed to comply with asset declaration requirements or had acted in a non-transparent manner.

Azam contended that the statements were untrue, baseless and intended to damage his reputation and standing in the eyes of the public.

He insisted that he had fully complied with all asset declaration requirements applicable to public officials and that any acquisition and subsequent disposal of shares had been duly declared through the appropriate official channels, including the Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS).

He also stated that the shares referred to in the article had been disposed of before they were issued, and that he had the legitimate financial means to make such investments, derived from lawful income and retirement benefits.

Overall, Azam alleged that the article contained inaccurate information, misleading representations and a selective presentation of facts that collectively created a false narrative about him.

-- BERNAMA