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.
20. In the meantime, however, as I mention above, it is my belief that the term “ top echelons of PAS ” would clearly be understood by its readers to refer to me, by readers of the article both in England and Wales and other jurisdictions who are familiar with Malaysian politics and with PAS. My position as the President of PAS means that I am the face of the party. Contrary to what is stated in paragraph 12 of the Defence, I am the most senior office holder in the party, and bear ultimate executive responsibility. As stated in Clause 26 (1) (a) of PAS’s constitution (translated):
“the President holds the responsibility as leader to execute PAS administration, movement and activities in order to fulfil the objectives ensured in this constitution according to the principles outlined and decided by bodies authorised by this constitution to elaborate, clarify and interpret PAS principles as well as making resolutions with regards to it.”
21. The detail of my response to the claims made in paragraph 14 of the Defence in relation to the reference issue will be dealt with in the Reply, but I can confirm from my own knowledge that only a very small proportion of the dozens of people mentioned in paragraph 14 have any public profile or would be known to the ordinary member of the public in Malaysia. By contrast, I believe that the witness evidence will confirm that most people associate my name and my face with PAS, to the point of us largely being
5
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
synonymous. This is reflected by the fact that I am, for example, for the most part the face of all our promotional material, such as for the Policy Speech for the PAS Annual General Meetings [see pages 22 to 29]. .I feature on the home page of the PAS official website [see page 30]. I even note that, as President, I am at the top of the list of PAS office-holders on the PAS Wikipedia page [see pages 31 to 39].
Impact of the allegations
22. The false, extremely serious accusations which the Defendant made against me in the words complained of have caused me great distress. Adhering to the tenets of Islam is fundamental to me, not just as a Muslim but also as leader of Malaysia’s largest Islamic party. Naturally, as well as being abhorrent (and criminal) in its own right, bribery is strictly forbidden by my religion and indeed any involvement in such conduct is considered an extremely serious wrong. I abhor corruption in all its forms, and to be accused of having accepted a bribe, or tacitly approving of my party members doing so, has caused me great distress and will have caused untold damage to my reputation as a Muslim, as the leader of an Islamic party, and as a person. It would be a very serious blow to me personally as well as my ability to rid my character of the stain of these allegations if I was not permitted to bring my claim before the English Court.
23. I have no doubt that the publication of these allegations has caused serious harm to my reputation and good name earned through decades of hard work and religious observance. The suggestion that I am bringing this claim to protect the reputation and advance the political purposes of Najib Razak is as baseless as it is offensive and adds enormous insult to injury. The allegations have damaged my stature in the estimation of others and continue to do so. This has been made considerably worse by the Defendant’s continued publication of attacks on me on her website, including her decision to publish the whole of her Defence in these proceedings.
“RPK”
24. I am aware that the Defendant has brought a Counterclaim against me in respect of a number of articles authored by Raja Petra Kamarudin (“RPK”) and published by the websites Malaysia Today and/or Third Force which she says amount to harassment and intimidation. I understand that the Defendant relies on these articles, in addition to
6
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
a number of other articles by RPK, in support of her contention that the proceedings cannot be fairly disposed of and as such should be stayed. I understand it is also asserted by the Defendant and by RPC (both in correspondence and in Mr Mathieson’s witness statement) that I have collaborated with RPK to undermine the Defendant’s credibility and the credibility of the 1MDB scandal by sharing information relating to these proceedings with RPK.
25. I have known RPK for 40 years, and he is a supporter of PAS. Furthermore, while I do not normally read RPK’s articles, it is clear from his website that he has taken a keen interest in these proceedings. It also appears from RPC’s correspondence and Mr Mathieson’s witness statement that there are a small number of occasions where RPK has obtained information concerning the proceedings that has emanated from the PAS side and which have then been reported by RPK, sometimes inaccurately. However, and to be clear, to the extent that any information has emanated from anyone at or associated with PAS concerning the proceedings, that was done entirely without my knowledge, instruction or agreement.
26. I am also aware that included in material published by RPK online have been certain articles which, as my solicitors made clear in correspondence and as I stated in my Defence to Counterclaim, I find deplorable and which I condemn. However, not only was I previously unaware of these articles and I had nothing to do with them, nor can I can see any basis for suggesting that anyone within PAS played any part in them either.
27. I should also make clear that, in light of the matters raised by the Defendant, I have made very clear to my colleagues that no information is to be passed to RPK concerning this case – albeit that, like other online and other media publishers with an interest in Malaysian politics, it is inevitable that RPK will continue to take an interest in these proceedings.
28. For the avoidance of doubt, I should also make clear (as I am aware it is a matter that has been raised by the Defendant) that I have not passed any information concerning these proceedings to the Malaysian government or authorities. If anyone from or on behalf of PAS has done so, it would have been contrary to my wishes and without my authority. I should add that these proceedings have attracted considerable publicity in Malaysia, not least as the Defendant has seen fit to use them as a platform to air her views and allegations about the “1MDB” scandal (despite them being, I believe,
7
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
completely irrelevant either to me or PAS, or to these proceedings). As such it is wholly unsurprising that the Malaysian High Commission in London has taken an interest in the proceedings.
Ambiga Sreenevasan
29. I do not know who first provided information relating to the Defendant’s Defence to the Malaysian media. It is not suggested by Mr Mathieson that it was me or anyone from PAS. The controversy surrounding Ms Sreenevasan appears to have been primarily sparked by the Defendant’s publication of her Defence on her website on 30 October 2017 [see pages 69 – 73]. This accords with her regular public comment on this case, even before proceedings began.
30. It is certainly the case that the allegations attributed to Ms Sreenevasan in the Defence have caused considerable unhappiness in Malaysia. However, so far as I can see, nothing has been said or done by any PAS spokesperson that can remotely be characterised as an improper attempt to intimidate Ms Sreenevasan into not giving evidence in these proceedings. Indeed, although it was reported in English at the time by Free Malaysia Today [see pages 40 to 41], Mr Mathieson does not mention the article written in the PAS newspaper Harakh on 3 November 2017 in which a senior PAS member Sukby Latif called upon PAS members to “just keep silent, and let the court fulfil its duty” [see original article and translation at pages 42 to 46]. In addition, I myself gave instructions on 12 November 2017 to the PAS Central Committee that no PAS Members should make any further statements to the media concerning these proceedings, and repeated these instructions again at a PAS Central Committee meeting on 12 February 2018.
31. I would also observe that, from my memory of the coverage, Mr Mathieson’s characterisation of this incident as the central and most prominent news story in the Malaysian media for four solid days is a complete exaggeration.
32. I am in no doubt that Ms Sreenevasan should be fully at liberty to give evidence in these proceedings should she wish to do so, without any fear of reprisal.
33. I did nothing to prompt the police investigation into Ms Sreenevasan and nor do I have any reason to believe anyone from PAS did either. In fact it is apparent from news reports that the original complaint lodged against Ms Sreenevasan was by UMNO
8
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
Grassroots Movement Chairman Zulkamain Madar. I understand from reports that a second complaint was also lodged, although it is not clear by whom and, as I say, so far as I am aware this was not lodged by anyone connected with PAS.. The Inspector- General of Police Tan San Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun was reported in the press on 11 November 2017 [see page 47] saying that an investigation was required following such complaints:
“I think two police reports have been lodged in regard to this matter, so we have to open an investigation paper.”
34. The Inspector-General’s comments were in response to a statement by the Malaysian Bar (which was reported by The Malaysian Insight on 10 November 2017), in which they made it clear that there was no legal basis to investigate Ms Sreenevasan [see pages 48 to 49].
35. I do not know anything about the progress or current state of any police investigation, although I note that in mid-February 2018 Ms Sreenevasan told reporters that she had not been contacted by the police [see pages 50 to 51].
36. I would further observe that Ambiga is a prominent public figures in Malaysia and a well-known activist. She has formerly served as the President of the Malaysian Bar and was former chairperson of Bersih, an NGO Coalition advocating for free and fair elections [see pages 52 to 54]. I understand that she has previously been arrested for her activities in standing up for causes in which she believes in 2011 [see pages 55 to 57]. She is also a vociferous critic of Prime Minister Najib Razak and his government and has been vigorously and publicly campaigning for a change of government in the forthcoming election. The idea that she would be intimidated into silence as a result of the matters referred to in Mr Mathieson’s witness statement is simply unreal.
The Defendant’s public commentary on the claim
37. I believe the Defendant’s purported concerns about public comments on this case need to be seen not only in the context of the extreme and aggressive language used by her and her supporters on her Sarawak Report website (which I have set out in my Defence to her Counterclaim), but also in the context of the Defendant’s public commentary on these proceedings to date and her repeated attacks on me, PAS, and the alleged political motivation of this claim. The Defendant is of course entitled to express her views, but her
9
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
activities, and those of her supporters, have contributed to keeping these proceedings in the public eye and to stoking the level of feeling and intensity of debate on both sides.
38. As I mention above, at the same time as ignoring Carter-Ruck’s letter of claim sent on my behalf, the Defendant chose to respond to the claim in the public arena, by denigrating me and my complaint in her article dated 11 February 2017 [see pages 19 to 21], saying that because no proceedings had been issued by then, I must have “chickened out”.
39. I am aware that, after proceedings had been issued on my behalf, on 23 June 2017 the Defendant initiated a public fundraising page on the website Crowdjustice [see pages 58 to 59] to raise funds for her legal expenses. The page included a summary of the issues of the case, as the Defendant perceived them. The article included the following:
Malaysia's Islamic party PAS has now taken exception to being caught up in the scandal, having broken with the opposition alliance in order to collaborate with the Prime Minister's own BN alliance at the very height of the exposures of theft from the development fund. Sarawak Report pointed out that the PM distributes money to gain political support and that considerable largesse was noted to have been passing from his administration for the first time into PAS during this very period of intense scandal, at which point a section of the leadership chose to rupture its links with the opposition and later work with Najib instead - splitting the party's own leadership and following in the process.
PAS's President Hadi has said he views our comments as a personal attack on his reputation in the UK, yet he is seeking to avoid placing security of costs in the UK court before we file our defence. This forces us to pay for expensive legal support to file that defence, money we have little hope of retrieving, whether or not he continues with his case. We believe this is a politically motivated attack and that the people involved are hoping we will settle the action rather than place a defence. They will then use that outcome, backed by BN's powerful propaganda machine to seek to discredit us. Please help us fight this case in order to counter this the latest of so many attempts to discredit our work.
10
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
37. I am aware that shortly thereafter, the Defendant published an update on the progress of her fundraising initiative [see pages 60 to 62), in an article which included the following:
PAS is seeking to avoid putting up the normal security for costs in this case, claiming that if it loses Sarawak Report would easily be able to claim back the millions of pounds fighting such a case could incur.
We would just have to pop into court in KL!
The result of this manoeuvre has been to force Sarawak Report to pay out tens of thousands of pounds just to open our defence in the UK, knowing that PAS can walk away with little danger of having to pay us back if they fail to brow-beat us into ‘settling’ their claim.
38. I also understand from my solicitors that the Defendant published her account of the second security for costs hearing which took place on 2 August 2017 in an article entitled “ So Who Is Supporting 'Opposition" PAS Leader, Hadi Awang, In His Suit Against SR? ” [see pages 63 to 66]. The comments below that article which the Defendant published on her website [see pages 63 to 66] until shortly after the service of my Defence to her Counterclaim included the following statements about me:
This despicable Taliban Arab wannabe should be riding a camel and lives in caves instead of driving luxury cars and living in luxury modernised dwellings.
Officially, Hadi the dick has RM16k as MP. But unofficially is anyone's guess!!
...and this hadi is dumb enough to get sodomized by najis from behind in babi style and act as one.
A clear fucked up no-brainer!!
39. Not long after, as set out in my Defence to the Defendant’s Counterclaim the Defendant published a further article on 24 August 2017 entitled “For The Avoidance Of Doubt” [see pages 67 to 68], which was primarily an attack on RPK, but in which she stated:
11
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
Sarawak Report is more than confident over its legal defence with respect to what it regards as a contrived case brought by the PAS Islamic Party of Malaysia against it, in a blatant attempt to silence honest reporting and comment that is overwhelmingly in the public interest in the United Kingdom as well as in Malaysia.
Contrary to Mr RPK’s allegations, the substance of the case has yet to be heard.
…
We would relish encountering both him and Hadi Awang in a London court room and also Najib Razak, who according to these remarks published by RPK, appears to be hanging his own reputation on the outcome of this case brought by PAS, which continues to describe itself as an opposition party to BN.
40. As I have also already stated at paragraph 29 above, I am aware that the Defendant chose to publish her Defence and Counterclaim on her website, Sarawak Report, on 30 October 2017 under an article entitled “Response to Hadi Awang ” (see pages 69 to 73). The comments which the Defendant published about me under that article included the following:
Fake religious man, good for nothing moron, and he's dreaming of running the country into the deep Najis hole and... to hell!
He cannot even lead PAS and let alone Kelantan.Too lazy to work but wants money,therefore sells his soul. Another corrupted Party is teaming up with the established corrupted ones.
That's it, SRB, sue that hypocrite TILL KINGDOM CIME. Make those barstards eat their own lies with mud stick onto them till they meed the Creator..
No mercy on people like them.
41. I am also aware from my solicitors that the Defendant did not publish my Defence to Counterclaim on her website until 10 December 2017 [see pages 74 to 75], some 2
12
Claimant Abdul Hadi Awang First Witness Statement Exhibits AHA1 17 April 2018
weeks after it was served, and only after my solicitors raised this fact by letter dated 1 December 2017 [see pages 76 to 77], although I note from her article that she claims this was “in part” to allow time for the courts to make the documents publicly available.
42. I am also aware from my solicitors that the Defendant has recently issued a further fundraising webpage on 6 April 2018 [see pages 78 to 79], which included an update on the proceedings, as follows:
Sarawak Report wants to thank everyone so far who has already helped us stand up to the costly legal action launched by PAS President Hadi Awang in the London High Court. Thanks to that support we have stood our ground with a strong defence of our position and our right to report on the situation in Malaysia and scandals such as 1MDB. You can see the full details of Hadi's claim as well as my Defence and Counterclaim (including proposed amendments before the court).
We now have a date in court before a judge on 30 April – 2 May 2018. This hearing is set to decide whether the article even referred to Hadi and whether we are entitled to rely on new evidence we have submitted. It will also deal with our complaints about months of harassment and intimidation which we allege was instigated by supporters of PAS. If the hearing goes well it could draw an end to Hadi's claim, with only my counterclaim remaining, before it turns into the multi-million pound libel trial that we believe he is seeking to finance, apparently with the support of fundraising by PAS.
At this hearing Hadi's lawyers will also try to strike out a section of our defence, namely the 'truth defence' that claims the allegations were correct. However, we believe that we have a strong case. On top of this we have also submitted new evidence, including the recording allegedly of Nik Abduh confirming that Hadi has given his blessing to senior PAS officials taking money from the ruling UMNO party. ...
We hope that you can help Sarawak Report, together with our fantastic legal team, to continue to stand firm and ensure that Hadi's case faces scrutiny by a judge, who will at last evaluate the credibility of this action and the conduct of this case, which we have (we believe rightly) deplored.
13
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:
ABDUL HADI AWANG Claimant / Respondent
-and-
CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN
Defendant / Applicant
______
WITNESS STATEMENT OF ABDUL HADI AWANG ______
6 St Andrew Street London EC4A 3AE Ref. AT/HSS/13750.2 Solicitors for the Claimant / Respondent
15