Latest news with #SLAPP
The Sun
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Stay granted on sexual assault suit against PM
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted a stay in the civil suit filed against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2021 by his former research officer Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over allegations of sexual assault. The decision effectively puts the High Court trial on hold, pending the outcome of constitutional issues that are being brought before the Federal Court. The decision, made by a three-member panel yesterday, means the trial will not proceed until the appellate court hears the prime minister's appeal against the High Court's refusal to refer key constitutional questions to the apex court. Case management has been set for Sept 2, during which a hearing date for the appeal will be scheduled. In a statement, Anwar's lead counsel Datuk Seri Rajasegaran S. Krishnan stressed that the prime minister is not seeking immunity from legal action or attempting to avoid trial. 'The prime minister is simply asserting his right to raise constitutional questions of public importance before the trial begins,' he said. Among the questions raised are whether civil suits involving a sitting prime minister's conduct prior to taking office should be subject to safeguards, and whether there should be protection from politically motivated suits aimed at undermining a government – similar to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases. The legal team also questioned whether a filtering mechanism should be in place, similar to those applied to judges or Malay Rulers under Article 183 of the Federal Constitution before such suits are allowed to proceed. 'These are serious and unprecedented questions. If not addressed, any prime minister could be targeted with lawsuits timed for political impact, risking the stability of the executive,' the statement added. The stay allows the appellate courts to consider the constitutional implications before the trial resumes. 'The prime minister has nothing to hide and is ready to respond to all claims through a process that respects the constitution and the balance of powers it upholds,' said Rajasegaran. The civil suit against Anwar was filed by Yusoff who alleged that he was sexually harassed by Anwar in 2018. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, claims the incident took place at Anwar's private office. Anwar has strongly denied the allegation, calling it baseless and politically motivated. The High Court had previously fixed the trial to begin in June this year. Anwar had sought the apex court to rule whether Articles 5, 8, 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from Yusoff's suit. Anwar had asked the court to decide whether Yusoff's suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. He had also requested the court to consider whether the lawsuit impacts his ability to carry out executive duties and undermines the principle of separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution.
The Sun
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Court halts sexual assault suit against PM Anwar Ibrahim
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted a stay in the civil suit filed against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2021 by his former research officer, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over allegations of sexual assault. The decision effectively puts the High Court trial on hold, pending the outcome of constitutional issues that are being brought before the Federal Court. The decision, made by a three-member panel today, means the trial will not proceed until the appellate court hears the Prime Minister's appeal against the High Court's refusal to refer key constitutional questions to the apex court. Case management has been set for Sept 2, during which a hearing date for the appeal will be scheduled. In a statement, Anwar's lead counsel Datuk Seri Rajasegaran S Krishnan stressed that the Prime Minister is not seeking immunity from legal action or attempting to avoid trial. 'The Prime Minister is simply asserting his right to raise constitutional questions of public importance before the trial begins,' he said. Among the questions raised are whether civil suits involving a sitting prime minister's conduct prior to taking office should be subject to safeguards and whether there should be protection from politically motivated suits aimed at undermining a government—similar to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) cases. The legal team also questioned whether a filtering mechanism should be in place—similar to those applied to judges or Malay Rulers under Article 183 of the Federal Constitution—before such suits are allowed to proceed. 'These are serious and unprecedented questions. If not addressed, any Prime Minister could be targeted with lawsuits timed for political impact, risking the stability of the executive,' the statement added. The stay allows the appellate courts to consider the constitutional implications before the trial resumes. 'The prime minister has nothing to hide and is ready to respond to all claim through a process that respects the Constitution and the balance of powers it upholds,' said Rajasegaran. halting the sexual assault suit filed against him in 2021 by former research officer Muhammed Yusoff Rawther. The civil suit against Anwar was filed by his former research assistant, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther who alleged that he was sexually harassed by Anwar in 2018. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, claims the incident took place at Anwar's private office. Anwar has strongly denied the allegation, calling it baseless and politically motivated. The High Court had previously fixed the trial to begin in June this year. Anwar had sought the apex court to rule whether Articles 5,8,39,40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from Yusoff's suit. Anwar had asked the court to decide whether Yusoff's suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. He had also requested the court to consider whether the lawsuit impacts his ability to carry out executive duties and undermines the principle of separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.
Irish Examiner
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Ireland's new defamation law ‘falls short of EU SLAPP directive'
Ireland's new defamation laws risk incurring EU legal action, the Government has been warned. The Dáil last week passed the long-awaited Defamation Bill, with the Seanad passing it at second stage last Wednesday. However, a group of organisations, including the National Union of Journalists, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, and RTÉ have argued that while the Defamation Bill contains provisions to stop so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) cases, it 'fails to include the robust safeguards required to meaningfully protect public interest speech'. Such SLAPP cases usually involve affluent plaintiffs attempting to silence or censor criticism by suing critics, forcing them to spend huge sums on legal fees defending their position. The Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network group says that, nearly a decade after the review of the Defamation Act 2009 began, 'this is a frustrating outcome and a missed opportunity to protect the freedom of expression that is the lifeblood of our democracy'. Law falls short of transposing full directive The group says that while the bill brings in provisions that give effect to aspects of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, it falls short of transposing the directive's full set of minimum standards and protections, which Ireland is legally required to implement in full by May 2026. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the bill apply only to defamation proceedings and do not extend to privacy, copyright, or data protection cases. The group stated: The Government has provided no clear explanation of how it intends to extend protections beyond defamation in line with its EU obligations. They said that the legislation also 'omits key components of the directive that could have been readily included'. These include provision for third-party interventions in support of SLAPP defendants (Article 9), security for damages (Article 10) and a reversal of the burden of proof (Article 12). The legislation also fails to incorporate the protections against SLAPPs initiated in non-EU countries (Articles 16 and 17). 'By failing to incorporate these core safeguards, the Irish Government exposes itself to potential infringement proceedings from the European Commission," the group stated. Recommendation on countering SLAPPs It said the Government could and should have drawn on established international best practices, including the Council of Europe's recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs. 'This recommendation includes vital safeguards, such as an automatic stay of proceedings while an early dismissal motion is being heard, which are designed to protect against abusive litigation. "It provides clear, practical guidance for safeguarding free expression and democratic accountability. Yet the Government appears to have almost entirely disregarded it.' Speaking in the Seanad on the bill last week, justice minister Jim O'Callaghan said full transposition 'will be done'. 'Let us remember that this is a defamation bill. It is appropriate that we just transpose into the Defamation Bill those aspects of the SLAPP directive that relate to defamation.' Jessica Ní Mhainín of Index on Censorship said: 'It is ironic that this piece of legislation was passed in the Dáil on European Day of Action against SLAPPs because it completely fails to offer meaningful protection to SLAPP defendants. "Its complex and flawed provisions risk becoming tools only accessible to those with significant legal resources — not the individuals most often targeted with SLAPPs.'
Zawya
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
The Verdict is in and Greenpeace Won't Accept Justice
Environmental hate group Greenpeace has once again launched an attack on the African Energy Chamber ( and Africa's energy sector, citing the continent's efforts to accelerate development as a coordinated attack on the right to dissent. Using the example whereby a jury in North Dakota issued a landmark ruling, ordering Greenpeace to pay $660 million in damages for malicious interference with the Dakota Access Pipeline, the organization has declared that companies such as the African Energy Chamber (AEC) utilize Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - SLAPP suits - to intimidate and silence critics. Let us be clear: lawsuits like the example above are not tactical weapons to intimidate: it is a clear example of justice being served to organizations attempting to dismantle global development and community empowerment. The examples shared by Greenpeace are not 'corporate weaponization of the law to dismantle civil society opposition' - it is a clear example of justice. Greenpeace has proven time and time again that it does not in fact care about people; it operates under a mandate to attack the energy industry. The AEC has been consistent in its calls, advocating for justice, inclusive development and equitable investments. On the other hand, Greenpeace has been consistent in its attacks, targeting projects that stand to make a difference in the world. As we have said before, the organization's methods go beyond protesting – they involve a calculated strategy of misinformation, disruption and direct interference with energy infrastructure. When faced with the consequences of their actions – in this case, $$660 million worth – the organization blames investors, they blame the justice system and they blame the energy sector. Africa is so close to unlocking significant economic development. With 125 billion barrels of crude oil, 620 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and abundant renewable energy potential, the continent is working hard to bring tangible benefits to its communities. Africa is not pursuing ambitious projects with the aim of exporting. Africa is accelerating development with the aim of creating greater value from its oil and gas resources – resources that western nations have long-benefited from. Organizations such as Greenpeace claim to stand on behalf of 'concerned citizens,' yet they so carefully ignore the very citizens set to benefit from Africa's oil and gas resources. We have said it time and time again, with over 600 million people living without access to electricity and over 900 million people living without access to clean cooking solutions, Africa cannot afford to leave these resources in the ground. This very statistic has led the citizens of Africa – not only corporations – to rally behind the call to 'make energy poverty history.' And it is large-scale oil and gas projects that will achieve this goal. From Namibia's Orange Basin to Libya's Sirte to Angola's Kwanza and Mozambique's Rovuma, Africa's oil and gas basins will transform the continent. Major investments stand to do more than extract resources, they create jobs, develop infrastructure, boost skills development and give hope to millions of Africans. These projects are being developed in close coordination with environmental groups. Take the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a vital infrastructure project set to connect Uganda's oilfields with Tanzania's Port of Tanga. EACOP developer TotalEnergies has placed environmental protection and community engagement at the very heart of development. The project is being developed through specialized measures geared towards protecting the environment as well as the rights of local communities. Environmental and Social Impact Assessments were carried out in compliance with the standards of the International Finance Corporation, third-party reviews were conducted, regular engagement with impact communities is deployed. Right from the design phase of these projects, special attention has been paid to information, consultation and consensus-building with all stakeholders. Over 70,000 people were consulted for the ESIAs and more than 20,000 meetings have been held to date with the populations concerned and civil society organizations. The project is an example of how oil companies are in fact working in close partnership with environmental authorities. Greenpeace's attacks on the industry go beyond infrastructure. The organization strongly opposes oil and gas exploration, disrupting seismic data acquisition and drilling. Campaigns have been launched against Shell in South Africa, and as a result, the country has been unable to understand the wealth of resources it has offshore. Greenpeace is seeking donations to support its efforts to block development in South Africa, calling 'To Hell with Shell.' Similarly, the organization is opposing Africa Oil Corp as it strives to unlock new development opportunities in South Africa. Greenpeace is appealing an Environmental Authorization received by Africa Oil Corp to conduct exploration. In Mozambique, Greenpeace has called for investors to stop financing vital projects, including major LNG developments that could transform southern Africa into an energy hub. By accosting funders, they have impacted developments in the Rovuma basin, leaving millions in energy poverty without a second thought. But the question is, why Africa? Greenpeace are fiercely opposing African exploration efforts but ignoring projects in other regions such as the Middle East. This is an intentional attack on the continent. Greenpeace is right. The lawsuit against it is not an isolated event – it is a demonstration of how Greenpeace continues to blame others for the damages it causes. Organizations such as the AEC have tried again and again to work with environmental groups, but they are not interested in partnerships. They only want disruption. Sustainable development is about people, it is about inclusivity and it is about democracy. We should ask ourselves: will we allow environmental groups to dictate what Africa deserves? Will we allow these groups to attack projects, prevent growth and disrupt the livelihoods of people? Or will be make energy poverty history and transform the lives of African people? Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.
Scoop
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Greenpeace International Begins Groundbreaking Anti-SLAPP Case To Protect Freedom Of Speech
In a landmark test case of the European Union's new legislation to protect freedom of expression and stop abusive lawsuits, Greenpeace International has overnight challenged the US oil pipeline company, Energy Transfer, in court in the Netherlands.[1] The multi-billion-dollar company brought two back-to-back SLAPP suits against Greenpeace International and Greenpeace in the US, after Greenpeace showed solidarity with the 2016 peaceful Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The first case was dismissed, but the Greenpeace organisations continue to defend against the second case, which is ongoing, after a North Dakota jury recently awarded over 660 million USD in damages to the pipeline from Greenpeace International and allies were present outside the courthouse in Amsterdam for the first hearing in the case with a banner reading " ENERGY TRANSFER, WELCOME TO THE EU - WHERE FREE SPEECH IS STILL A THING". Mads Christensen, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, says:"Energy Transfer's attack on our right to protest is an attack on everyone's free speech. Greenpeace has been the target of threats, arrests and even bombs over the last 50 years and persevered. We will continue to resist all forms of intimidation and explore every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for this attempt at abusing the justice system. This groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands is just the beginning of defeating this bullying tactic being wielded by billionaires and fossil fuel giants trying to silence critics all over the world. Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people's ability to hold corporate polluters to account for the devastation they're causing." Russel Norman, Executive Director, Greenpeace Aotearoa, says:"The timing of this case is particularly poignant given that we are about to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by agents of the French Government here in Auckland. The bombing was an act of desperation by the French Government in the face of our successful, people-powered campaign to end nuclear testing in the Pacific. "Forty years ago, we showed that we could not be intimidated. Greenpeace only grew stronger, and together with the nuclear-free Pacific movement, we put a stop to nuclear testing. Now, as Greenpeace International goes to court in Amsterdam, Energy Transfer would also like us - and all climate activists - to be afraid and to shut up - but once again, we will show that we will not be silenced."The lawsuit is an important test of the European Union's Anti-SLAPP Directive, adopted in April 2024.[2] The Directive is designed to protect journalists, activists, civil society organisations, or anyone else speaking out about matters of public concern, from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) - unfounded intimidation lawsuits brought by powerful corporations or wealthy individuals seeking to suppress public debate.[3] Since Greenpeace International is a Netherlands-based foundation and the damage caused by Energy Transfers's US SLAPP suit is occurring in the Netherlands, both Dutch and EU law apply. Amy Jacobsen, Senior Legal Counsel, Greenpeace International, says,"This case paves the way for protections from bullying lawsuits being implemented throughout Europe and beyond. The lawsuits that Energy Transfer have brought against Greenpeace International are the perfect example of the kind of abusive legal proceedings that the anti-SLAPP Directive is designed to protect against. By calling upon the EU anti-SLAPP Directive's protections, Greenpeace International refuses to allow the bullying tactics of wealthy fossil fuel corporations like Energy Transfer to compromise our fundamental free speech rights." Following a dawn ceremony on the 10 July 2025 in Auckland, the Rainbow Warrior will be open to the public for tours and talks with the crew on the weekends of 12 July and 19th July. Notes: [1] The new EU rules are aimed at addressing the growing number of abusive lawsuits against journalists, media outlets, environmental activists and human rights defenders. In February 2025, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union's anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers's back-to-back, meritless lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. [2] EU Member States have until 7 May 2026 at the latest to transpose the rules into their national laws, but the Dutch government has indicated that the Directive's protections can already be applied under existing Dutch legal frameworks. [3] Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years. Some of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies' SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024. Greenpeace Romania was being sued by the energy company Romgaz in 2025 - with the aim of dissolving the organisation, but their claims were withdrawn and they were forced to pay the court expenses to Greenpeace Romania. Greenpeace Italy and Greenpeace Netherlands are facing the Italian oil giant Eni in an ongoing court case in Italy.
