MACC chief Azam Baki files RM100 million lawsuit against Bloomberg, seeking damages and an injunction over a report on alleged share ownership.
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has filed a defamation lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P.
The suit relates to an article published on Feb 10 concerning alleged share ownership, which Azam claims is defamatory.
Filed through Messrs Zain Megat & Murad at the High Court, the suit names Bloomberg L.P. and its Malaysian subsidiary as defendants.
Azam is seeking RM100 million in general damages, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages, interest and costs.
He also seeks an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing or republishing the cited words or any similar defamatory statements.
The plaintiff further requests the alleged defamatory content be removed within three days from the date of judgment.
In addition, Azam is demanding a public apology, with the wording to be agreed upon in advance by his solicitors, to be published in newspapers and on social media platforms selected by him.
Azam alleged that at 8 am on Feb 10, the defendants published and caused to be published an article on Bloomberg.com titled “Malaysian Anti-Graft Chief Returns to Stocks After Outcry”, written by Niki Koswanage and Tom Redmond.
He claimed the article contained defamatory statements, including an allegation that, in his capacity as Chief Commissioner of the MACC, he owned 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd based on corporate filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM).
The article also allegedly stated, without evidence, that he had not publicly declared his assets.
Azam contended that the publication concerned the Malaysian public administration and touched on his role as a high-ranking civil servant.
He further stated that the article was accessible in Malaysia through subscriptions to the Bloomberg Terminal, which is used by customers, financial institutions and commercial entities in the country.
The plaintiff alleged that the statements conveyed the impression that he had abused his power and position or was involved in corrupt practices.
He also stated that prior to the publication, the defendants had contacted him for clarification on the matters they intended to report, and that he had provided a clear, detailed and reasonable explanation in response to their queries.
