Hearing of Ahmad Zahid's committal proceeding against Tun Mahathir postponed to July 21
The proceedings concern Dr Mahathir's actions in holding a press conference on Dec 5 last year at the lobby of the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex, during which he displayed several documents, including his identity card, after giving his testimony in his lawsuit against the UMNO president regarding the 'kutty' issue.
Judicial Commissioner Gan Techiong allowed the hearing to be postponed after Dr Mahathir's lawyer, Mior Nor Haidir Suhaimi, informed the court that his legal team required time to review Ahmad Zahid's affidavit-in-reply, which they only received yesterday (May 21).
'We need to seek instructions from our client regarding the contents of the affidavit, and my client is currently in Langkawi attending the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA'25).
'Therefore, we request that today's proceedings be postponed. I believe the defendant's counsel has no objection,' he said.
Lawyer Mohamed Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman, representing Ahmad Zahid, confirmed submitting the affidavit yesterday and did not object to the postponement.
Meanwhile, the court set new dates, from July 22 to 24, for the trial of the suit and June 19 for the case management.
Dr Mahathir had completed giving his testimony in the lawsuit proceedings on Dec 5 last year, while his son, Datuk Seri Mukhriz, who was the plaintiff's last witness, on Dec 9.
Dr Mahathir, 99, sued Ahmad Zahid, 72, for allegedly issuing defamatory statements against him regarding the 'kutty' issue.
Based on the statement of claim filed on July 20, 2022, Dr Mahathir claimed that Ahmad Zahid issued a defamatory statement against him during the UMNO Division meeting in Kelana Jaya on July 30, 2017 and that the statement was republished on Astro Awani's YouTube and several online news portals, which can be accessed by internet users without any restrictions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
8 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Why no legal action in Batu Puteh's case? — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 24 — All decisions made by the Public Prosecutor (PP) aka Attorney General (AG) on whether to prosecute or not to prosecute should promote consistency in decision making. This is where a prosecution policy would be useful. The policy should outline the relevant factors and considerations which should be taken into account when prosecutors exercise their discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence. The policy should also serve to inform the public and lawyers of the principles which guide the decisions made by the prosecutors. In Australia, the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides a two-stage test that must be satisfied before a prosecution is commenced. First, there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case. Second, it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest. In December 2024, a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) recommended a criminal investigation against Dr Mahathir under Section 415(b) and Section 418 of the Penal Code. — Picture from X/ahmadmaslan In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case the prosecutors must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The existence of a prima facie case is not sufficient. In making this decision, the prosecutors must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in court. They must take into account matters such as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses, their likely effect on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. The prosecutors should also have regard to any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction. The possibility that any evidence might be excluded by a court should be taken into account and, if that evidence is crucial to the case, this may substantially affect the decision whether or not to institute or proceed with a prosecution. The prosecutors must look beneath the surface of the evidence in a matter, particularly in borderline cases. Having been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation or continuation of a prosecution, the prosecutors must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. In this regard, the prosecutors must consider all of the provable facts and all of the surrounding circumstances. The public interest factors to be considered inevitably vary from case to case, but the following may be considered: whether the offence is serious or trivial; any mitigating or aggravating circumstances; the youth, age, intelligence, physical health, mental health or special vulnerability of the alleged offender, witness or victim; the alleged offender's antecedents and background; the passage of time since the alleged offence; the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution; the prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for general and personal deterrence; the attitude of the victim; the need to give effect to regulatory or punitive imperatives; and the likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt. The above are not the only factors, but generally the more serious the alleged offence is, the more likely it will be that the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued. The decision to prosecute must be made impartially and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not also be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the government. If age is just a factor and not the only factor to prosecute a case, why the decision not to pursue legal action against former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad over Malaysia's withdrawal of its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh? In December 2024, a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) recommended a criminal investigation against Dr Mahathir under Section 415(b) and Section 418 of the Penal Code. Dr Mahathir said then that he was prepared to face any investigation and emphasised his integrity during his time as prime minister. Let there be an investigation. It is not even a prosecution, not yet. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Sun
9 hours ago
- The Sun
Sejahtera MADANI initiative needs strong follow-up to succeed
PUTRAJAYA: The success of the People's Well-being Initiative (Sejahtera MADANI) hinges on strong follow-through to ensure lasting impact in eradicating urban poverty, said Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. Ahmad Zahid, who is also the Rural and Regional Development Minister, emphasised that while the initiative is a positive step, it requires sustained efforts to truly benefit those in need. 'As often said, we cannot just give a man a fish — we must give him a fishing rod so that he can catch fish on his own. 'In other words, the programme must be long-term and include joint monitoring by the private sector, government-linked companies, government-linked investment companies and other bodies. This is a good approach,' he said. He spoke to the media after the launch of Sejahtera MADANI by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The initiative, backed by nearly RM120 million in funds, provides not only financial aid but also goods, services, and training. Ahmad Zahid praised the effort, coordinated by the Implementation Coordination Unit of the Prime Minister's Department, as a commendable step in addressing poverty. Sejahtera MADANI targets poor and hardcore poor households registered under the National Poverty Database (eKasih system). It integrates aid from ministries, agencies, and the private sector for a focused, nationwide approach. Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar added that the initiative aligns with the Fifth Core of the Public Service Reform Agenda, which strengthens public-private collaboration. 'The implementation chain of such programmes must continue to be strengthened, in line with the Whole-of-Nation approach that emphasises the spirit of unity and consensus, in accordance with the principle of ihsan, which underpins the MADANI values,' he said. He also thanked strategic partners for their corporate social responsibility efforts in aiding the underprivileged. - Bernama
Malay Mail
9 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Anwar, govt cleared as court strikes their names from Mukhriz Mahathir's RM5m tax challenge
KUALA LUMPUR, July 24 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the government succeeded today in having their names removed from a judicial review application filed by Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir. Mukhriz is challenging the Inland Revenue Board's (IRB) issuance of additional tax assessment notices for the years 2017 to 2019, demanding payment of over RM5 million. High Court Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh allowed the application by Anwar, in his capacity as Finance Minister, and the government to strike out their names as respondents in the judicial review proceedings. However, the court dismissed their bid to expunge several paragraphs in Mukhriz's affidavit that made reference to both respondents, and fixed December 16 for the hearing of the substantive judicial review application. On January 2, Judge Amarjeet granted leave for Mukhriz to commence judicial review proceedings, having found that the case raised arguable grounds. Earlier, senior federal counsel Nur Irmawatie Daud, representing both the second and third respondents, argued that the additional assessment notices were issued by the first respondent, the Inland Revenue's chief executive officer or director-general. 'The judicial review application is scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of court process,' she submitted. However, Mukhriz's counsel, Syed Afiq Syed Albakri, contended that the second respondent had influenced the first respondent in the issuance of the said notices against his client. Mukhriz, 60, filed the judicial review application on December 20 last year, naming the IRB's CEO or Director-General, Anwar and the government as the first to third respondents respectively. The businessman sought an order to quash the decision of the first respondent to issue additional assessment notices for the years 2017 to 2019, amounting to RM5,020,707.18, on the grounds that the decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The Pejuang president also sought a declaration that the imposition of penalties under Section 113(2) of the Income Tax Act 1967 was null and void, as well as ultra vires. The former Kedah Menteri Besar further sought a declaration that the second respondent (Anwar) had abused his powers in causing the first respondent (the government) to issue the said notices. Finally, he sought a declaration that the second respondent had similarly abused his powers in directing the issuance of a certificate under subsection 104(1) of the Income Tax Act 1967. — Bernama
