HADI’S
LIBEL ACTION AGAINST CLAIRE BROWN
by K. Siladass
PAS leaders are telling that they will
give a “suitable” and “possible explanation” as to why their leader Dato Seri
Hadi Awang withdrew the defamation action brought against Claire Brown in
London court. What do they mean by “suitable” and “possible explanation”? When
you start an action in court, you do so to seek a remedy. Defamation actions
are initiated to protect your name and at the same time clear off all the
defamatory statements made against you. It is common knowledge in the legal
circle that, the defamation actions are the worst type of litigation: you
hardly win, and even if you win depending on the facts of the case, damages
maybe minimal and costs awarded too may be insignificant. Lawyers are very
careful when embarking upon libel action.
Settlements in defamation actions are not
strange. If you are the plaintiff you would settle the action without much ado
provided the defendant who made the defamatory remarks agrees to withdraw the
impugned statement. Monetary consideration may not play a significant part
because yourmain concern would be that your name is cleared: thus, withdrawal
of the published defamatory statement itself may be construed as an admission
of the fact that the published statement was untrue. In such a situation all
what the plaintiff has to do is to accept the withdrawal and put an end to the
action with one particular prohibition, namely, that the defendant having
withdrawn the defamatory statement will not in the future
repeat it.
However, when the parties to the
defamatory action settle the matter through mediation or negotiation, the terms
that will feature in the settlement are that: (a) the plaintiff agrees to
withdraw the action, (b) that the defendant will not repeat the defamatory
statements, (c) that each party to bear its own costs. If the defendant acts in
breach of the consent order contempt of court proceedings becomes unavoidable.
And why would the plaintiff especially in
the case of Hadi Awang, withdraw the action having spent a lot of time and
money, which money was collected from the public especially from the party members
of which Hadi Awang is the president? The only reason could be that pursuing
the action would lead to exposing the plaintiff; or there is truth in the
statement that were made by the defendant, and even if there were elements of
lack of evidence, when considering public interests, such allegations may be
justified because of the nature of the allegations and the responsibility the
plaintiff, as a leader of the political party,owes.
Therefore, having decided to withdraw the
action, the plaintiff owes an explanation to the public why he elected to do
what he did. As has been said earlier the plaintiff need not look for
“suitable” and “possible explanation”, all what he has to do is to admit that
the likelihood of success is too remote. The defences of qualified privilege,
fair comment and justification are too exacting - and the plaintiff cannot hope
to succeed. These are plain and obvious,and natural consequences. You don't
have to look for explanation outside the purview of legal position; because,
the withdrawal of the suit does not prevent the defendant from publishing nor
repeating the statements, which, in fact,is continuing. If Claire Brown is
acting in breach of the consent order as claimed, go ahead and initiate
contempt proceedings against her: then, the truth will be out: not that
Malaysians are not privy to the truth. Another challenge Hadi Awang has to meet
is why be secretive about the terms of the consent order? Make it public and
let the whole world know the reason or reasons for the compromise.
