Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has filed a defamation suit against Bloomberg LP over an article published on Feb 10 regarding alleged share ownership.
The lawsuit was filed at the High Court on Friday (Feb 20) through Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, naming Bloomberg LP, headquartered in New York, and its Malaysian subsidiary, Bloomberg (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, as the first and second defendants respectively.
According to the writ of summons and statement of claim, Azam is seeking RM100 million in general damages, along with aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest and legal costs.
He is also applying for an injunction to prevent the defendants, including their agents and employees, from publishing or republishing the statements cited in the suit or any similar defamatory remarks. In addition, he is requesting that the allegedly defamatory content be removed within three days from the date of judgment.
Azam is further demanding a public apology, with wording to be agreed upon by his solicitors, to be published in newspapers and on social media platforms of his choosing.
In his statement of claim, Azam alleged that at about 8am on Feb 10, the defendants published an article on Bloomberg.com titled “Malaysian Anti-Graft Chief Returns to Stocks After Outcry,” written by Niki Koswanage and Tom Redmond.
He contended that the article contained defamatory statements, including a claim that he owned 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd, based on filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), in his capacity as MACC chief commissioner. The article also allegedly stated that he had not publicly declared his assets.
Azam argued that the publication concerned matters of Malaysian public administration and related directly to his role as a senior civil servant. He noted that the article was accessible in Malaysia via subscriptions to the Bloomberg Terminal, which is widely used by financial institutions and commercial entities.
He claimed the article conveyed the impression that he had abused his position or engaged in corrupt practices.
According to Azam, the defendants had contacted him prior to publication for clarification, and he had provided a detailed and reasonable explanation. However, he alleged that they failed to properly consider his response and instead proceeded to publish the article in what he described as a biased, sensational and misleading manner that created a negative and inaccurate portrayal of him.
He further alleged that the defendants did not take sufficient steps to verify the information before publication, including conducting further checks or cross-verification.
Azam asserted that the publication breached principles of responsible journalism and contravened Section 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, which prohibits the dissemination of false or unverified news. He maintained that publishers have a duty to ensure that their reports are accurate and not misleading.
He also claimed that the defendants’ alleged failure to verify the information amounted to negligence, reckless disregard for the truth and malice.
The article, he said, implied that he was dishonest and untrustworthy, had breached asset declaration rules, abused his position for personal gain, and was involved in questionable financial activities linked to share ownership. He further alleged that it suggested non-compliance with asset declaration requirements or a lack of transparency.
Azam maintained that the allegations were false and intended to damage his reputation. He stated that he had complied fully with all asset declaration requirements applicable to public officials, and that any acquisition and subsequent disposal of shares had been properly declared through official channels, including the Human Resources Management Information System (HRMIS).
He added that the shares mentioned were disposed of before they were issued, and that he had legitimate financial means to make such investments, derived from lawful income and retirement benefits.
Overall, Azam contended that the article contained inaccuracies, selective reporting and misleading representations that created a false narrative about him.
