When does a lawsuit on journalists becomes a ‘SLAPP’? — Kassim Noor Mohamed

The term "SLAPP" has gained prominence in discussions surrounding press freedom. These Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are a genuine concern when powerful entities employ litigation merely to silence critics, drain journalists financially, or dissuade them from publishing critical stories. The objective is to deter journalists from reporting important and investigative pieces, thus impeding the vital role of the press as a check and balance mechanism.

However, there is a secondary issue that warrants equal attention - the risk of broadly applying the term SLAPP, leading to the misapplication of the concept to any defamation case against a journalist, especially when the lawsuit's size is substantial. The central question that arises is not whether SLAPPs exist, but rather how to differentiate between a lawsuit intended to silence journalism and one that seeks legitimate accountability for alleged defamatory statements.

A recent case involving Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB) and its executive vice-chairperson, Tan Sri Salim Fateh Din, against veteran journalist P. Gunasegaram, provides valuable insight into this complex issue. The lawsuit, demanding RM100 million, has drawn attention for its staggering amount. Press freedom organizations have expressed concerns over the lawsuit's excessive nature and its potential chilling effect on journalists.

The Centre for Independent Journalism and the Committee to Protect Journalists have both raised alarm bells, urging the withdrawal of the suit. It is widely acknowledged that press freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies, and journalists must investigate powerful individuals, corporations, and governments without fear or favor.

However, freedom of expression does not entitle individuals to immunity from responsibility. Article 10 of the Federal Constitution safeguards freedom of speech and expression while acknowledging that Parliament may impose restrictions relating to defamation. This duality of rights - the right to speak and publish, and the right to protect one's reputation - coexist harmoniously.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further underscore the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of honour and reputation. While the former emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the latter recognizes the right to protection against unlawful attacks on one's honor and reputation.

The key takeaway is that freedom of expression and the right to reputation are not mutually exclusive but require a delicate balance. A defamation lawsuit should not be deemed an infringement on human rights merely because the defendant is a journalist. The critical question is whether the legal process is being employed legitimately and proportionately to protect reputation or if it is being abused to suppress legitimate public-interest speech.

A journalist should be prepared to defend their work, regardless of the lawsuit's magnitude. The size of the claim does not determine the veracity of the allegations. If a journalist has thoroughly investigated a matter, obtained credible information, verified the relevant facts, and formed conclusions that can be reasonably defended, the lawsuit's size should not undermine the truth.

Especially when the allegations are serious and capable of affecting the reputation of a publicly listed company or individuals associated with it, the journalist should stand by their journalism and present the evidence supporting their assertions.