Kuala Lumpur: MACC chief Azam Baki has withdrawn his defamation suit against whistleblower Lalitha Kunaratnam, following which the Kuala Lumpur High Court quashed the original July 9 trial date for the civil action over an allegation related to his ownership of shares in two public-listed companies.
Azam’s legal counsel from Zain Megat & Murad law firm filed the withdrawal notice on June 11. The Lalitha’s legal counsel Khairuddin, Ngiam & Tan, also signed the filing.
Azam Baki Withdraws Defamation Suit
The notice mentioned that the defamation action was dismissed without the possibility of refiling it and without any order to cost.
The filing also said the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit “on the basis of no prejudice and without admission of both parties”.
Background on Defamation Suit
In a statement on January 12, 2022, Azam’s legal team announced the filing of a defamation suit. The MACC chief sued Lalitha in his personal capacity.
He had earlier sent a letter to Lalitha through his lawyers, demanding an apology and RM10 million in damages.
Standing by her reports, Lalitha criticised the MACC’s attempt to get the police to investigate her.
FOLLOW US ON X: CLICK HERE
Allegations on Share Ownership
Azam Baki grabbed eyeballs for owning 1,930,000 shares in Gets Global Berhad (formerly KBES Berhad) on April 30, 2015, valued at approximately RM772,000 at that time.
On March 31, 2016, his stake in Gets Global fell to 1,029,500, which was then worth about RM340,000.
As of March 2016, he also had 2,156,000 arrest warrants at Excel Force MSC Berhad.
His ownership of shares in 2015 and 2016 raised questions about whether this coincided with his income as a public servant.
Response and Investigation
During a special press conference on January 5, 2022, Azam did not deny owning the shares but claimed that they were purchased by his brother on his behalf. The shares have since been transferred to his brother.
Nearly a week later on January 18, the Securities Commission (SC) announced that it had completed its investigation into the matter and could not conclusively find a violation of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry Law (Central Depositories) Act 1991(Sicda).
However, after backlash, the SC clarified that Azam had “control” of his own trading account and found no evidence of proxy trading.
Lalitha’s Defense and Azam’s Critique
In her statement of defence against the defamation suit, Lalitha stated that she was willing to prove in court the content of her online articles on the subject.
However, in his response to her defence statement, Azam said that Lalitha cannot be considered an investigative journalist because she is neither credible nor trustworthy.
ALSO READ: Zafrul Slammed For Political Banner At Mosque ‘Korban’ Event – What Are The Legal Implications?