K. SILADASS

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accept the withdrawal and put an end to the action with one particular prohibition, namely, that the defendant having withdrawn the defamatory statement will not in the future repeat it.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.