Former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim today failed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to prove his libel claim against Foreign Minister Anifah Aman.

Judicial Commissioner Siti Khadijah Syed Hassan Badjenid said on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has failed to prove the case.

She said this in her brief oral judgment.

Justice Siti Khadijah also ordered Anwar to pay RM20,000 costs to Anifah, despite his lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah ( photo ) asking for RM100,000.

Anwar, 68, was represented by lawyers Razlan Hadri Zulkifli and Leela Jesuthasan.

Razlan later confirmed that Anwar will be appealing today's decision.

Anwar had sued the Sabah Umno leader for RM100 million for defamation following a press conference he gave in Washington.

In the said press conference, Anifah alleged that the PKR de facto leader was trying to buy Umno politicians six years ago during the failed Sept 16 attempt to form a government.

Anwar claimed that this painted a picture that he was a corrupt, unprincipled, unethical and not qualified to be a politician.

In her draft judgment, however, Justice Siti Khadijah said Anwar had successfully shown to court that the imputation brought by Anifah had indeed lowered the opposition leader's esteem and ridiculed him.

“In conclusion, the court found that Anwar had proven that the press statement has brought a sting of defamation which brings false imputation on the plaintiff of trying to corruptly bring in MPs, as in the claims stated above,” the judicial commissioner said.

Despite this, she said, the situation is different because except Anwar, there were no other witnesses called to prove the claim.

“Without the testimony of ordinary witnesses, especially from the public, it could not provide a picture of their view and interpretation when they read the press statement. Following this, the court had no other way but to rely on Anwar's testimony alone,” she added.

Not intended for outside US publication

Justice Siti Khadijah said court also noted that Anifah had during the press conference used the words “just for the information of the audience here (United States)”, in which the court views the statement was made in a closed manner (denoting the defence of qualified privilege).

“This meant the defendant (Anifah) did not intend for the statement to be carried in Malaysia.

“In court's view, on the balance, the warning given by the defendant (Anifah) is sufficient message, or warning to those who attended the press conference there and that it would be at their own risk and their own liability,” she said.

However, the press statement made available in the United States Secretary of State website was picked-up by The Star , resulting in the suit filed by Anwar.

Justice Siti Khadijah added what is clear to the court is that the publication was made by the defendant in the United States and nothing in relation to the publication made by The Star in Malaysia.

She ruled that the defendant's claim is slander and not libel.

“Accordingly, based on Section 23 (1) (a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the civil jurisdiction of the High Court is for a cause of action which arises within the local jurisdiction.

“The Malaysian High Court has no jurisdiction or cause of action outside Malaysia. Based on the reasons above and on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has failed in his claim against the defendant,” she said.