KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today struck out a lawsuit by two Sabahan Christians against PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang over his alleged seditious remarks against Christians.
The remarks were published in a newspaper, five years ago.
Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir made the order after allowing Abdul Hadi's application to have the case against him quashed.
In his decision, Akhtar said the two Sabahan men - Maklin Masiau and Lawrence Jomiji Kinsil @ Maximilhian, had failed to produce the original copy of the impugned article of Abdul Hadi's remarks published in PAS newspaper Harakah.
He said the court was instead led to a reproduction of the article in another publication.
He said this was fraught with danger because the actual things said in the original article are not known.
"In this case, the copy of the statement in Harakah was not produced before the court.
"The reproduction of the article was in English, it is not clear whether the original Harakah article was in English or another language... the primary document cannot be dismissed," he said.
Akhtar said although the originating summons (OS) filed by the plaintiffs said that it is a public interest litigation, it does not become a public interest litigation merely because a public figure is involved.
He added that there are no elements of public interest in the suit as the subject matter of the case involved a remark which was made five years ago.
"They have resurrected the matter which was in 2016 and made it a new issue... How can it be public interest five years later," the judge said.
Akhtar had also in his judgement said there was nothing in the purported remarks allegedly given by the the defendant (Abdul Hadi) which referred to the plaintiffs.
Rather, he said it was referring to the Christian missionaries and the plaintiffs did not represent themselves as Christians missionaries.
On this, he ruled that the plaintiffs clearly had no locus standi.
"In short, when I look at this whole OS, in fact if anybody is to be blamed for seditious tendencies, are the plaintiffs themselves.
"Therefore, I am allowing the defendant's application to strike out the OS. It is frivolous and an abuse of the court process," he said.
Looking at the matter in hand, Akhtar said punitive costs should be imposed as it was a frivolous case which can choke the justice system with unnecessary litigation.
"It seems the fashion nowadays is to point the phrase 'see you in court' to scare a person.
"Now it has become a fashion statement. We shouldn't allow this for anybody to bring frivolous action to court," he said, ordering each of the plaintiff to pay RM50,000 in punitive costs to Abdul Hadi.
Meanwhile after the proceedings, lawyer R. Kenghadaran who represented the two Sabahans said he will be seeking instructions from his clients on whether to appeal the decision.
Counsel Yusfarizal Yussoff represented Abdul Hadi.
Abdul Hadi had sought to strike out the OS filed by Masiau and Kinsil claiming that it was an attempt to oppose and take over the prerogative power of the Prime Minister to make appointments.
Among others, Abdul Hadi claimed that the lawsuit was brought against him to deny his rights under Article 8 (2) of the Federal Constitution which gives freedom to citizens to hold any public office.
The two Christian men from Labuan, Sabah, had filed the OS on Dec 9 last year, claiming that the defendant had acted in contrary to Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948.
They claimed that Abdul Hadi had made an unfounded statement and casted aspersions on Christians and the Christian missionaries.
The statement, they claimed was issued by the Marang member of Parliament on Jan 18, 2016, in the Harakah newspaper and later reported by online news portal Free Malaysia Today.
They claimed that the statement by Abdul Hadi has affected the Christian community in the country and thus became a public interest matter.
They said they filed the legal action as it has been more than four years since the defendant issued the allegedly seditious statement but no prosecution was ever brought against him.
"As such, we verily believe and respectfully state that the defendant is unfit to hold any position in the government of Malaysia, including that of a position equivalent to a ministerial post," they claimed.