Azam’s lawyer, Shahir Tahir, said the dates were fixed during an online session conducted by High Court deputy registrar Maslinda Selamat today.

“The trial will be before Justice Akhtar Tahir,” Shahir told FMT.

He said the matter will be called for case management on June 7 next year to ensure all pre-trial directions have been complied with by both parties before the hearing begins.

Lalitha was represented by counsel Ibrahim KP Kunji Mohamed.

Shahir, who was assisted by Alya Tadwini Talha, said Azam intends to call two witnesses to give evidence at the trial.

Azam sued Lalitha in January last year over a two-part series she wrote titled “Business ties among MACC leadership: How deep does it go?”

The articles were published on the Independent News Service (INS) portal on Oct 26, 2021 and republished on Dec 15 the same year.

He also claimed Lalitha had shared links to the articles on her Twitter account @LalithaVelvet.

Azam said the articles were sensational, scandalous and offensive.

He said they were written and republished maliciously to portray him as a corrupt civil servant who had abused his position as a senior MACC officer for his or his sibling’s interests.

He also claims the alleged defamatory statements suggest that he owns shares and warrants worth millions of ringgit purchased with money obtained illegally.

He said they also suggest he had invested millions of ringgit over a short period of time, and had not declared the purchase of shares and warrants during his tenure as MACC’s director of investigations.

In addition, he claims the articles suggested that he and his brother were directly or indirectly involved in illegal activities through a company known as RI Intelligence Sdn Bhd.

In her defence, Lalitha denied that the articles, taken in their proper context and natural and ordinary meaning, were defamatory of Azam.

In any event, she said, she was entitled to rely on the defence of justification, qualified privilege, neutral reportage, the “Reynolds defence”, fair comment, and several provisions in the Defamation Act 1957.

The “Reynolds defence” was developed by the House of Lords in a landmark case known as Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (1999).

In that case, England’s apex court held that a journalist reporting responsibly on matters of public concern was entitled to protection from defamation suits even if the report contains allegations which turn out to be wrong.