Harris awarded RM170,000 in suit over Labuan

The High Court had decided that the surrender of Labuan to be a Federal Territory was in accordance with the law.

KOTA KINABALU: Session Court Judge Ishak bin Bakri, in awarding former Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh RM170,000 in a defamation suit, said the full written grounds of judgment would take two months.

The written grounds, he added, would focus on three issues tried by the court: Whether the defendant James Albanus was liable for defamation against Harris Salleh over a news report; if liable, whether James Albanus was protected by the defence of justification and fair comment; and if not protected, what should the quantum of damages be that James Albanus should pay to Harris Salleh for defamation.

Harris had sued James Albanus @ Richard over an article published in the Daily Express on March 8, 2012 entitled “Harris Sued For Giving Away Labuan 28 Years Ago”.

Harris, through counsel Trevor Maringking, claimed the article was defamatory.

Judge Ishak earlier ruled that Harris had proven that the report was defamatory of him, was untrue, unfair, and not of public interest. “Failure of the defence of justification is an aggravated factor and thus higher damages ought to be awarded against the plaintiff.”

The Judged said: “Therefore it is my ruling that global damages be awarded to Tan Sri Harris Salleh in the amount of RM150,000 and costs to be paid to the defendant in the amount of RM20,000.”

Once false and defamatory words were published, said the Judge, malice was presumed and evidence must be adduced to rebut this presumption. “It is the agreed fact that the said article was published in the Daily Express newspaper which is also available online.”

In the instant case, he said, the plaintiff (James Albanus in a first case where he sued Harris) was malicious and/or reckless in causing the said article to be published because it is evidently clear that he commenced the legal suit (against Harris) only after a lapse of so many years. “It is clear from the said article that the plaintiff was blaming the defendant in that he had unilaterally and individually and also rashly and in unconstitutional manner surrendered Labuan to be a Federal Territory,” said the Judge.

Thus the words used by the plaintiff in the said article are statement of facts, he stressed, and not comments “since the plaintiff had clearly stated in the said article that the reasons why Sabah was not financially well off as a state was because of the surrender of Labuan, which was undertaken by the defendant”.

Since the High Court had decided that the surrender of Labuan to be a Federal Territory was in accordance with the law and was not the personal act of the defendant but the act of the state, the Judge pointed out, “the said article, if it is held to be a comment, was not based on true facts”.

Thus the plaintiff had failed to substantiate the material allegations in the said article that the surrender of Labuan was unconstitutional and was the personal act of the defendant, he continued. The Judge pointed out that “failure to apologise coupled with insistence upon the truth of the statements throughout the proceeding was the stance taken by the plaintiff (James Albanus)”.

“He not only failed to apologise but proceeded to call his witnesses to blame the defendant (Harris Salleh) on the surrender of Labuan.”

Even the plaintiff’s witness Simon Sipaun testified that what the plaintiff had stated in his pleadings was not based on the information he had told the plaintiff, said the Judge.

The fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his allegation, said the Judge, especially when there was actually no evidence from the alleged very important person (Sipaun) to support such allegation meant that the allegation was at all material time scandalous and outrageous, made simply for the purpose of gaining publicity only.

Clearly the said article calls into question the defendant’s honesty and integrity in the creation of the Federal Territory of Labuan, held the Judge, while it lowered the defendant in the estimation of right thinking members of the public in Sabah and “exposed him to hatred, contempt or ridicule pursuant to the misleading and false facts asserted by the plaintiff in the said article”.