Chief Judge of Malaya Azahar Mohamed said the court needed time to consider the case.

“We will inform the parties once we are ready with our decision,” Azahar, who sat with Zaleha Yusof and Zabariah Mohd Yusof, said.

Salleh filed the defamation suit against Rafizi in 2013, after the former MP alleged that he and NFCorp had used a RM71 million government loan as collateral to purchase properties in KL Eco City.

In 2016, the High Court ordered Rafizi to pay RM150,000 in damages, after holding him liable for defaming Salleh.

The Court of Appeal, however, agreed with Rafizi’s appeal and set aside the lower court’s ruling. It ordered the RM150,000 that was paid by Rafizi to Salleh to be refunded and also awarded costs of RM110,000 to Rafizi.

Earlier today, the Federal Court heard submissions from lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing Salleh and NFCorp, and Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, appearing for Rafizi.

Shafee told the court that Rafizi’s allegations that Salleh had used RM71 million in public funds, meant for the feedlot project, as guarantee to secure house loans for eight apartment units did not arise.

“The bank did offer the loans but ultimately, my client (Salleh) did not take up the loans. After six months of no response, the bank terminated the offer for loans.

“When we cross-examined Rafizi during the trial, he admitted that he did not know such a thing (on Salleh turning down the bank loans offer),” he said.

Shafee also said Rafizi, who had in his possession bank documents belonging to Salleh and related companies, did not make attempts to verify them with Salleh.

“He had time to prepare a four-page media statement but he didn’t call my client to verify the matter,” Shafee said, adding that Rafizi was “reckless” and that the High Court had said Rafizi’s media statement had been done with malicious intent.

However, Razlan disputed Shafee’s argument, saying nowhere in the High Court judgment did the judge hold that Rafizi had made the statement with malicious intent.

“With the greatest respect, this is the counsel’s (Shafee) conclusion, not the trial judge’s,” he said.

Razlan also told the court that the trial judge had erred in law in holding Rafizi liable for defamation.

“The statement in question should be read entirely, not just a part of it that read ‘the funds for the feedlot project had been misappropriated to secure house loans’.

“He (Rafizi) made a demand for the government to take action because during the material time, the NFC scandal was already the subject of huge media coverage and political discourse,” he said.