Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018 Claim No. HQ17M01386 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST B E T W E E N: HONOURABLE ABDUL HADI AWANG MP Claimant -and- CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN Defendant _______________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF ABDUL HADI AWANG _______________________________ I, ABDUL HADI AWANG of Kampung Masjid Rusila, 21080 Marang, Terengganu, Malaysia WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the Claimant in this claim against the Defendant for defamation. I make this Witness Statement in order to address certain aspects of the Defendant’s Application dated 23 January 2018 whereby they seek the strike-out and/or dismissal of my claim and summary judgment, or a stay of proceedings, on the basis that (1) the claim cannot be disposed of fairly or justly (2) there is no case on reference (3) the claim is an abuse of the Court’s process. 2. Where this statement is based upon matters within my own knowledge, I believe it to be true. Where it is based upon information provided by others, I believe it to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018 3. I exhibit to this Witness Statement an exhibit of true copy documents marked “AHA1”. Unless otherwise stated, references to page numbers in this Witness Statement are references to page numbers in Exhibit AHA1. Background 4. I am the President of the Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (“PAS”). I was Acting President from 2002 to 2003, and subsequently elected as President on 2003 (since when I have held the position continuously). I was the assemblyman for Rhu Rendang and Member of Parliament for Marang, both in Terengganu, until the dissolution of Parliament on 7 April 2018 and the Terengganu State Legislative Assembly on 9 April 2018; I am standing for re-election at the forthcoming elections. 5. On 6 August 2016, the Defendant published an article on her website (Sarawak Report) entitled “ As Najib Denies All Over 1MDB, Let’s Not Forget His Many Other Criminal Connections – COMMENT” [see pages 1 to 13]. The article stated that “RM90 million is widely reckoned to have flowed into the top echelons of PAS in recent months” from UMNO, (the United Malays National Organisation, which is the ruling party in Malaysia), and its leader, Prime Minister Najib Razak . As the President of PAS I was in no doubt that a very significant proportion of those who read the article, whether in England and Wales or in other jurisdictions, would quite clearly have understood the reference to the “top echelons of PAS” to have included me. Indeed, I am aware that through a witness statement submitted by her previous solicitor the Defendant accepted this, albeit that position has subsequently changed. 6. My solicitors Carter-Ruck first wrote to the Defendant on my (and PAS’s) behalf on 13 December 2016 (see pages 14 to 16). Carter-Ruck made clear that the allegation to which I refer above was both highly defamatory of me, and wholly false, but that I would be prepared to settle my complaint without demanding damages or my costs, provided the Defendant published a suitable apology and gave an undertaking not to repeat the (false) allegation that I had complained of. 7. Regrettably, the Defendant completely failed to respond either to this letter or to subsequent emails from Carter-Ruck dated 5 January 2017 (pages 17 to 18). However, it was all too clear that the Defendant had received this correspondence because she referred to my complaint, in scathing terms, on her website in an article dated 11 February 2017 entitled “ CORRECTION - PAS Statements Are Inaccurate ” 2 Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018 [pages 19 to 21], asserting among other things that I had “chickened” out of my complaint. 8. Faced with the Defendant’s complete failure to engage with my complaint and the contempt with which she treated it, I was left with little choice but to issue proceedings. 9. My decision to bring these proceedings against the Defendant was, and remains, entirely motivated by my desire for vindication. Bringing a claim against the Defendant in England, which is the jurisdiction where she is resident and where the website is published from, will, if successful, enable me to vindicate my reputation in England, Malaysia and Singapore, countries where that reputation is of real importance to me. I would add that, as I understand it, I would have been entitled to bring proceedings against the Defendant in Malaysia, but I have no doubt that had I done so she would have refused to engage in the proceedings and/or she would have decried the Malaysian Courts as corrupt and any outcome in my favour as invalid. Indeed, in her largely unsuccessful Application for Security for Costs heard on 2 August 2017, the Claimant sought to suggest that the Malaysian judiciary was corrupt – a submission which Master Davison was not prepared to entertain based on the evidence placed before him by the Defendant. 10. Contrary to the suggestion at paragraph 99 of the witness statement of Keith Mathieson dated 23 January 2018 served in these proceedings, I have certainly not brought this claim principally for the vindication of my party, let alone to promote the political interests of Najib Razak. It may well be that any vindication I obtain over these allegations will have the collateral effect of benefiting PAS’s reputation, particularly now that the Defendant has chosen, in her Defence and on her website, to draw the party and other individuals into these matters. However that is not, and never has been, my main motivation. 11. As evidence of the Defendant’s contention that this claim is politically motivated, the Defendant seeks to suggest at paragraph 26 of the Defence that PAS and myself are colluding and co-operating with UMNO, by breaking with the Opposition coalition, by accepting public money to fund PAS projects and schools, and by purportedly remaining silent in respect of the 1MDB issue. This is incorrect. 12. With the exception of the period 1974-1978, PAS has been in Opposition to the ruling party UMNO since PAS was founded in 1951. During part of this time in Opposition, 3 Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018 we have on a number of occasions formed a coalition with other Opposition parties, including the Democratic Action Party (DAP). Most recently, PAS was part of the Opposition coalition until 6 June 2015, when we voted to leave. This was in fact the third time that the coalition with DAP has broken down (the first time was in 1999, before I was President, and the second time was in 2001). 13. The Defendant suggests at paragraphs 25.88 and 25.90 of the Defence that one apparent reason for PAS’s decision to leave the coalition in 2015 was the takeover over of the party by a “hardline, conservative ulama faction” led by Dr Haron Din and me, following the death of the former Spiritual Leader of PAS Nik Aziz Nik Mat. The Defendant suggests that this new “hard line” PAS was “conspicuously wealthy” and, effectively, in the pocket of UMNO. 14. The characterisation of the position is inaccurate and misconceived, and the suggestion that the departure from the coalition had been “bought” by UMNO is untrue. The detail of my response to these matters will be addressed in my Reply to the Defence if and when appropriate. However, to be clear, there has been no fundamental change in direction or policy for PAS. Indeed, both Nik Aziz Nik Mat and Dr Haron Din were both affiliated to the ulama faction in any event. The change of the Party’s Spiritual Leader does not represent a change in direction or policy for the party, nor is policy dictated by bribery, as the Defendant alleges. 15. The Defendant claims that, in exchange for our lack of co-operation with the Opposition Coalition, PAS accepted payments from UMNO and Prime Minister Najib Razak of large quantities of public money (in the region of RM80 million) to fund its privately owned Islamic religious schools. Once again, this is misconceived. 16. In fact, funding was given by UMNO to 819 recipients who represented religious schools and institutions throughout the country. The funds provided to schools in Kelantan were funds given by the Federal Government to schools that were registered under the Kelantan Islamic and Malay Traditions Council (MAIK); PAS was not involved in the distribution of the funds. 17. Regardless of the fact that PAS is no longer in the Opposition coalition, we remain in opposition to UMNO and Prime Minister Najib. We are vocal critics of the 4 Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018 government’s position in relation to the investigation of the 1MDB issue, and have raised the issued in Parliament on numerous occasions. 18. In addition, we are fielding over 150 candidates against UMNO in this year’s General Election out of 222 seats. It is simply not the case that PAS are colluding with UMNO, whether in this libel case, or more generally politically. Reference 19. I understand from my Solicitors that the Defendant is seeking to strike out my case on reference and have these proceedings dismissed on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. I will leave it for Counsel to make the relevant legal and pleading submissions on these matters, particularly as the Defendant seeks to bring this Application before I have even filed my Reply to the Defence.