.png)
MALAYSIAN Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has filed a RM100 million defamation suit against Bloomberg L.P. and its Malaysian subsidiary over an article alleging irregularities in his share ownership.
The writ of summons and statement of claim were filed at the High Court through Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, naming Bloomberg, headquartered on Lexington Avenue in New York, and Bloomberg (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd as the first and second defendants respectively.
Azam is seeking general damages of RM100 million, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest and costs.
He is also applying for an injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents or employees from publishing or republishing the impugned statements or any similar words alleged to be defamatory of him.
In addition, he is requesting an order compelling the removal of the allegedly defamatory material within three days of judgment and a public apology in terms to be agreed in advance by his solicitors, to be published in newspapers and on social media platforms of his choosing.
The claim centres on an article published at 8am on 10 February on Bloomberg.com titled Malaysian Anti-Graft Chief Returns to Stocks After Outcry, written by Niki Koswanage and Tom Redmond. According to Azam, the article alleged that, in his capacity as Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, he held 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Partner Bhd, based on corporate filings with the Companies Commission of Malaysia.
The report further stated, without proof, that he had not publicly declared his assets.
Azam contends that the article related directly to Malaysia’s public administration and to his position as a high-profile public servant. He notes that the content was accessible via subscription to the Bloomberg Terminal, used by financial institutions, commercial users and clients in Malaysia.
In his statement of claim, Azam asserts that the publication clearly portrayed him as having abused his office or engaged in corrupt conduct.
He maintains that before publication, the defendants contacted him for clarification on the matters intended for publication, and that he provided a detailed and reasonable explanation in response to their queries.
However, he alleges that the defendants failed and refused to give full consideration to his explanation, instead opting to publish the article in a manner that was one-sided, sensational and misleading, thereby conveying an untrue and negative impression of him.
Azam further claims that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the facts prior to publication, including conducting further verification, cross-checking sources and undertaking proper evaluation of the information obtained.
“The defendants’ actions are contrary to the principles of responsible journalism and the elements under Section 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, namely the prohibition on the publication of false or unverified news… the publisher has a responsibility to ensure that a publication is accurate, true and not misleading before it is disseminated to the public,” he states in the statement of claim.
He also alleges that the defendants’ failure to undertake reasonable verification despite having the opportunity to do so demonstrates extreme negligence, reckless disregard for the truth and malice.
According to Azam, the article carried the meaning that he is a dishonest and untrustworthy public official lacking integrity, that he breached asset declaration rules, abused his position and powers as Chief Commissioner for personal benefit, and was involved in financial misconduct or questionable activities related to share ownership.
He contends that it insinuated he had failed to comply with asset declaration obligations or acted without transparency.
He describes the statements and insinuations as untrue, baseless and intended to damage his reputation and standing in the eyes of the public.
Azam maintains that he has fully complied with all asset declaration requirements imposed on public officials, and that any acquisition and subsequent disposal of shares were duly declared through the prescribed official channels, including the Human Resource Management Information System.
He states that the shares referred to in the article had been disposed of prior to publication and that he had the lawful financial means to make such investments from legitimate income and retirement benefits.
He added that the article contained multiple inaccuracies, presented facts selectively and created what he describes as a false narrative about him in its entirety. - February 21, 2026