Justice Roz Mawar Rozain held that Rahim had failed to prove the case against them on a balance of probabilities.
The court held that Lee and Malaysiakini, the defendants in the suit, had succeeded in raising their defences of justification, fair comment, and neutral reportage.
“The publication construed an opinion (piece) and not mere fact, and the title indicated it was a commentary,” Roz Mawar said.
She said the court had looked into various “historical events” leading to Lee’s opinion piece on Dec 18, 2018.
In Lee’s opinion piece, titled “Khianat jika Rahim diterima masuk Bersatu – Pemuda DAP” (A betrayal if Rahim accepted into Bersatu – DAP Youth), he urged the then Pakatan Harapan component party to reject Rahim’s application for membership.
Roz Mawar noted that Rahim had published his response to Lee’s commentary on Facebook one day later, acknowledging that he was implicated in a “1994 scandal” involving claims of abuse of power.
“The plaintiff alleged that (current prime minister) Anwar Ibrahim had in the past ‘conspired’ to strip him off an Umno position, which led the plaintiff to screen a pornographic video (for public viewing) in a case known as ‘Datuk T trio’.
“During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted his willingness to break the law ‘if needed’. This directly concerns his fitness for public office.
“The underlying facts relied upon here (were true),” Roz Mawar said.
In the Datuk T Trio case, Rahim and two others were fined between RM1,000 and RM3,000 after they pleaded guilty to publicly exhibiting a pornographic video in 2011.
Court questions delay and motive in bringing suit
Roz Mawar also ruled that Malaysiakini was not acting maliciously in publishing Lee’s opinion piece.
“The editorial had even removed a sentence which demonstrated caution. Malaysiakini offered the plaintiff a chance to reply (to Lee’s opinion) but he declined,” she said.
The court also noted that Rahim only commenced the defamation suit against Lee and Malaysiakini in 2020.
“The delay raised the question of ulterior motives. I agree with counsel (for Malaysiakini) that this action caused commercial prejudice beyond the ordinary encounter in properly conducted litigation.
“The selective targeting of Malaysiakini had the effect of chilling political speech and journalistic reportage on legitimate public interest issues,” she said.
The court awarded a total of RM150,000 in costs to Lee and Malaysiakini.
Lawyers Choo Shi Jin and Harel Nieryan Abu Bakar appeared for Rahim, while Sangeet Kaur Deo and Kee Hui Yee represented Lee and Malaysiakini, respectively.
Lee was in court for the decision.