KUALA LUMPUR: Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh's defamation suit against former inspector-general of police Tan Sri Musa Hassan was vacated today after the latter and his lawyer failed to show up.
Musa's lawyer, Mohd Khairul Azam, when contacted, explained that he overlooked the hearing date on which his client was supposed to be cross-examined by the Segambut member of parliament's lawyer.
Khairul Azam said he would write a letter to the court and the plaintiff (Hannah) to inform them of the mistake.
High Court judicial commissioner Arziah Mohamad Apandi later set Aug 9 for the next hearing.
At today's proceedings, Hannah attended the court along with her team of lawyers, including Datuk S. Ambiga and Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.
At the last hearing on July 5, Musa, in his witness statement, said he never intended to literally state that Hannah wanted to turn Malaysia into a Christian country.
However, the former top cop said the evangelism movement linked to the plaintiff could impact national security.
Musa, quoting the definition of "Evangelist" from the 'Cambridge English Dictionary', said it interprets an evangelist as someone who tries to persuade people to become Christians, usually by travelling and organising religious meetings.
Musa said although the book, 'Becoming Hannah: A Personal Journey' by the plaintiff was approved by the government for public sale, it did not mean that it would not cause concern and anxiety, especially among the majority Malay population in this country.
However, Musa agreed with Razlan's suggestion that there was no documentary evidence showing that Hannah wanted to turn Malaysia into a Christian country when he served as IGP.
Musa is the sole defendant witness sued by Hannah in the defamation lawsuit concerning his speech at a forum at Universiti Teknologi Mara four years ago.
Based on the lawsuit filed on July 3, 2020, Hannah claims that Musa gave a speech at a forum titled "Current Issues Discourse on the Hat Yai Peace Agreement 1989: Did the CPM Surrender?"
Hannah claimed that the statements in the speech were untrue, distressing, false, incorrect and baseless, as well as premeditated, made with malicious intent, tarnished her reputation, defamed her and destroyed her reputation.