KUALA LUMPUR: The Sessions Court today proposed an amicable resolution to the lawsuit between Datuk Seri Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad and Datuk Dr. Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki regarding a Twitter post allegedly defaming the Health Minister.
Lawyer Mohamed Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman, representing Dr. Asyraf, who is UMNO secretary-general, said that Judge Norakhmar Mohd Sani proposed an amicable resolution during the proceedings in chambers today, in the presence of counsel Jaden Phoon Wai Ken, representing Dr. Dzulkefly.
“The judge said the parties can reach a settlement before the trial scheduled for Jan 20 to 24, 2025,“ he told reporters here.
Mohamed Shahrul Fazli said the trial was supposed to be today, but it was postponed because Dr. Dzulkefly was not feeling well.
On April 12, 2022, Dr. Dzulkefly filed a lawsuit against Dr. Asyraf for allegedly posting defamatory content on his Twitter account on Aug 24, 2020, which was also shared on the defendant’s Facebook.
In the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that the post suggests he engages in cronyism and nepotism, specifically referring to the appointment of his daughter as an Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) board member, implying misuse of power and position as Health Minister for personal and family benefits.
Dr. Dzulkefly asserted that the defamatory statements are baseless because when his daughter was appointed, AIM was overseen by a Board of Trustees appointed by the government, which at the time was the Barisan Nasional administration. Furthermore, he highlighed that he was not a minister, and the Pakatan Harapan political party was not in control at that time.
“In making the appointment, my daughter’s merit and qualifications were objectively evaluated. In addition, the Ministry of Health issued a media statement confirming its non-involvement in my daughter’s appointment,“ Dr. Dzulkefly said in his statement of claim.
As such, he is seeking compensation for general damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages as well as an injunction to prevent the defendant from reposting or spreading the defamatory content and a written apology to be published either on the defendant’s Twitter account or in a local newspaper of the plaintiff’s choice.
Meanwhile, Dr. Asyraf, in his defence statement, said that the post was not made with any malicious intent to harm the plaintiff’s reputation or integrity. – Bernama
