KUALA LUMPUR – The High Court has dismissed a defamation suit brought by Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and two other lawyers against the Malaysian Bar and its former president over remarks made about their conduct during former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s final SRC International appeal.
Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that Zaid and fellow senior partners at Zaid Ibrahim Suflan T H Liew & Partners (ZIST) – Liew Teck Huat and Rueben Mathiavaranam – had failed to prove claims of defamation, conspiracy to injure, and breach of statutory duty, local media reported.
The case centred on a media statement titled “Abuse of process brings disrepute to our justice system”, issued by then-Bar president Karen Cheah on August 19, 2022, shortly after Najib discharged ZIST from representing him in the apex court.
The plaintiffs contended that the statement implied they had deliberately acted unprofessionally and had accepted Najib’s case with the intent of undermining the justice system.
They also accused the Bar and Cheah of usurping the role of the Disciplinary Board by publicly condemning their conduct without first filing a formal complaint under Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA).
However, Roz Mawar held that the lawyers’ reputations had already been affected by their own public disclosures and developments in Najib’s appeal before the statement in question was published.
“The reputational impact of the plaintiffs’ conduct had already crystallised prior to the publication, owing to their own public statements and the unfolding events in the Federal Court,” she was quoted as saying.
“In the case, the plaintiffs themselves had, prior to the publication, made multiple public disclosures — admitting their lack of readiness, criticising prior counsel, and seeking adjournments which were ultimately refused by the Federal Court.”
She also cited legal precedent, remarking that “not every criticism amounts to defamation”.
While acknowledging that professional reputation is worthy of legal protection, Roz Mawar added: “The legal threshold for defamation is not met, where the sting of the statement does not materially add to a reputational damage already occasioned by events and disclosures independent of the impugned statements published.”
The court concluded that the statement did not further diminish the plaintiffs’ standing in the eyes of a reasonable public, nor was there evidence of a conspiracy to injure.
As such, all claims were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made after defence counsel Andrew Chiew declined to seek costs, an act Roz Mawar described as “rather magnanimous”.
Filed in September 2022, the suit alleged that Cheah’s statement, published on the Bar’s official website and carried by several media outlets, wrongfully portrayed the plaintiffs as abusing the court process and bringing the legal profession into disrepute.
The plaintiffs also argued that the Bar had breached its statutory duty by not referring their alleged misconduct to the Disciplinary Board beforehand.
In response, the defendants argued that the statement was fair comment on a matter of public interest and that they were under a statutory obligation to inform the public of the conduct of Zaid and his team. They further claimed protection under qualified privilege, citing the Bar’s responsibility to uphold professional standards and speak on legal matters affecting the public.
They also maintained that there had been no breach of statutory duty, pointing out that a complaint was in fact lodged with the Disciplinary Board on October 3, 2022, in accordance with Section 99(3) of the LPA. – May 29, 2025