Farhash fails to get interim injunction against MalaysiaNow

LocalPolitics
4 Sep 2025 • 11:47 AM MYT
The Vibes
The Vibes

Featuring breaking news & latest stories from every side.

image is not available
Farhash fails to get interim injunction against MalaysiaNow

BUSINESSMAN Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak today failed in his bid to obtain an interim injunction to bar news portal, MalaysiaNow from further publishing articles about him.

It was earlier reported that Farhash and the two others had filed an RM10 million defamation suit against MalaysiaNow and its editor over reports linked to an alleged issuance of a mining licence in Sabah.

The other plaintiffs are Bumi Suria Sdn Bhd (first plaintiff) and businessman Datuk Mohd Aminudin Mustaph (third plaintiff).

High Court judge Noor Hayati Haji Mat said there was no necessity to grant the temporary order while the substantive defamation suit filed by Farhash, Bumi Suria and Mohd Aminudin is pending.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit at the Shah Alam High Court on July 30 by naming MNow Media Sdn Bhd and Muhammad Abd Ar-Rahman Koya as defendants.

Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, who appeared for the news portal and its editor Abd Ar-Rahman Koya, in a statement, confirmed the ruling.

He said the court also awarded RM5,000 in costs to the defendants and held that it was not the court's duty to determine whether the impugned statements were defamatory at this preliminary stage.

"The court said the defence raised by the defendants was not demonstrably false, and therefore there was no need for an interim injunction. Accordingly, the court ruled that there is no necessity for such an order," he said.

Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam who is lead counsel for Farhash said his clients would be appealing the verdict.

Rajan was assisted by Aswath Ramakrishna and Oazair Tyeb while Rajesh was assisted by Sachpreetraj Singh

According to court documents, the plaintiffs claimed the MalaysiaNow reports were defamatory as they alleged the second and third plaintiffs had abused their positions to secure licences unlawfully, were involved in corruption and unethical practices, and harmed their reputation as businessmen and public figures.

They further claimed the impugned articles were false and misleading, published without verification and with malicious intent, creating the impression that they were corrupt, dishonest and unprincipled. - September 4, 2025

View Original Article