The Court of Appeal has ordered opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to pay RM100,000 costs, after dismissing his appeal over his defamation suit against Foreign Minister Anifah Aman.

Justice Umi Kalthum Abd Majid who led the three-member panel today, said “we are not with you” (to Anwar's counsel) Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.

“We dismiss the appeal with costs,” she said.

The three-member panel partially allowed Anifah's lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's cross-appeal on costs as he was seeking RM100,000 at the High Court stage and another RM50,000 at the appellate court stage.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the total quantum would be RM100,00.

The other two panel members were Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli and Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had initially fixed costs of RM20,000 to be paid by Anwar when he lost his case at the High Court as ruled by Judicial Commissioner Siti Khadijah Syed Hassan Badjenid.

No jurisdiction

Anwar, 69, sued the Sabah Umno leader for defamation following the latter's press conference in Washington alongside then secretary of state Hilary Clinton.

At the time, Anifah alleged that the Anwar offered inducements to Umno lawmakers during the failed Sept 16 attempt to form a government through defections. The statement was recorded in the US State Department website and reported in The Star locally.

Anwar said such claims portrayed him as corrupt, unprincipled, unethical and unqualified politician.

Siti Khadjah ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to what was said by Anifah while abroad although the "sting of defamation" was apparent.

“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 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.

The trial judge noted that during Anifah's press conference he had 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,” the High Court judge had said.

Not meant for publication

Razlan said the appeal should be allowed although the defence claimed that report in The Star was not verbatim as the court had examined the press statement and the newspaper report side-by-side, and the High Court ruled that the sting of the statement is the same to the layman.

The lawyer further said that Anifah was also shown the newspaper report in court, where he agreed that the statements were made.

Earlier, Justice Umi Kalthum had asked how could the court ascertain whether the press statement issued by the US State Department is correct without any witnesses called.

Meanwhile, Shafee in his submission showed that The Star report was not verbatim as the US State Department quoted Anifah saying “buying into” as opposed to the report which stated “buying”.

He also agreed with ruling that the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of Malaysia, and that the minister expressly stated during the press conference that his response was only to those present there in the United States and not meant to be published.

Razlan told reporters later that he would take instructions on whether to appeal today's decision. The other lawyers appearing with him were J Leela and Shahid Adli Kamaruddin.