KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will hear Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok Suh Sim’s application for committal against Pertubuhan Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) president Datuk Azwanddin Hamzah on Feb 18.
Kok had applied to initiate the committal proceeding after Azwanddin failed to comply with the terms of a consent judgement in a defamation suit by the former over the latter’s speech linking her to the incident at the Sri Maha Mariamman Hindu temple in Seafield, Subang Jaya, two years ago.
Her counsel S.N Nair told the press that the court had fixed the new date for the hearing which was supposedly set today.
“However, Azwanddin is not present in today’s proceeding and I was made to understand that he has a (criminal) case at the Ampang court,” he said after the matter came up before judicial commissioner Datin Rohani Ismail.
Azwanddin had in the Ampang magistrate’s court this morning pleaded not guilty to making a speech on the ‘May 13, 1969 tragedy’ with intention to cause fear to the public, two years ago.
Kok’s defamation suit against Azwanddin for allegedly linking her in a land dispute involving the Sri Maha Mariamman temple had been amicably resolved on July 29, last year, with Rohani recording the terms of settlement.
She said she filed the committal application because Azwanddin did not fulfil the terms of settlement within 45 days from the date the settlement was recorded and the terms included for the latter to retract statements on the issue which he had posted on social media.
In her suit filed on Jan 8, last year, Kok named Azwanddin in his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as JMM president as the first and second defendants.
In the statement of claim, Kok said on Dec 25, 2018, at a rally held at Dataran Seni Klang, Selangor, Azwanddin had made a speech which, among others, included defamatory words, libel and lies about her which were carried by local and international online media portals.
Kok claimed the speech, in its ordinary and natural meaning, was untrue, malicious, deliberate and had been done without due regard to the truth and was seriously prejudicial to her reputation.
She further claimed the defendant had caused the publication of the speech with the intention and motive of defaming her in her personal and official capacity and had been made mala fide and with malicious intention.
She alleged that the speech was published with the purpose of inciting the public and causing ill-will towards her and it was played out irresponsibly to the public, and was specifically made to achieve a cheap sensation, to create chaos and possible cause her physical and other harm.
Seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, she said the events had caused her distress, anxiety and shame.