Businessman Albert Tei has denied defaming former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Azam Baki, maintaining that his remarks were either substantially true or amounted to fair comment and honest opinion on matters involving public interest.
Tei filed his defence at the Shah Alam High Court last month in response to Azam’s defamation suit, which seeks damages and an injunction over remarks made during a podcast and subsequently circulated on social media and YouTube in May.
Azam alleges that Tei accused him of manipulating MACC investigations, acting as an intermediary in a corruption matter involving Sabah, abusing his position to protect politicians and attempting to silence the businessman.
According to Azam, Tei also claimed that he had sought to secure Tei’s silence through compensation and a “guarantee letter”, while allegedly influencing prosecutors to issue a “No Further Action” decision.
Azam has rejected all the allegations as false and malicious, saying they portrayed him as someone who controlled MACC investigations, colluded with politicians, obstructed justice and abused his authority as the agency’s chief commissioner.
He also claimed that Tei had failed to verify the allegations or seek his response before publishing them. Azam said the remarks were later republished across multiple platforms, further damaging his reputation.
Through the suit, Azam is seeking damages, a declaration that the statements were false and defamatory, as well as a permanent injunction preventing Tei from repeating the allegations. He is also seeking the removal of the podcast and related social media content.
In his defence, Tei argued that Azam had taken selected portions from a two-hour-and-11-minute podcast while leaving out its wider context, chronology and explanations.
Tei said an ordinary listener would have understood his remarks as criticism, comment and opinion concerning the conduct of a senior public official. His primary defence is justification, with Tei maintaining that the statements were “true in substance and in fact”.
He said the allegations were based on documents, communications and events involving Azam and his lawyer in connection with alleged corruption linked to mineral-mining licences in Sabah.
Alternatively, Tei argued that his statements constituted fair comment and honest opinion on legitimate matters of public interest, particularly concerning Azam’s conduct while serving as MACC chief.
Tei also disputed Azam’s claim of substantial reputational damage, pointing to previous public criticism directed at the former MACC chief commissioner. He maintained that his intention was to raise questions surrounding governance and accountability rather than maliciously attack Azam.
He further argued that the injunction sought by Azam could restrict his constitutional freedom of speech under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution and potentially affect public scrutiny of senior public officials.
Lawyer Mahajoth Singh, who is part of Tei’s defence team, said the court registrar yesterday directed both parties to file their respective pre-trial documents before the next case management, which has been fixed for Nov 11.
