.png)
THE Kuala Lumpur High Court was told today that the appointment of Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad's eldest daughter as a non-executive director in a private company related to information technology (IT) had nothing to do with issues of cronyism or nepotism.
Dzulkefly, 70, said Nurul Iman's appointment to the position was made on April 30, 2018, which was before the general election (GE) was held on May 9 of the same year and also before he was appointed to the ministerial position in July of that year.
The Vice President of Parti Amanah Negara (Amanah) said that he did not influence his daughter’s appointment in AIM Solution Group Berhad.
When the appointment was made, he was still an opposition political leader.
The Kuala Selangor MP stated this in a witness statement while giving evidence on the first day of the trial of the suit against former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, regarding the issue of cronyism and nepotism.
Dzulkefly, who was the plaintiff's first witness, also claimed that Najib, as the defendant, defamed him by stating that he used his position to appoint his own daughter to AIM Solutions.
"It is intended to portray me as an immoral individual who practices nepotism and cronyism. This is the defendant's malicious intent to damage my reputation. If he checks the date or contacts me, he will realise that the appointment was made before the May 2018 general election, when he (Najib) was the Prime Minister.
"I have no power or control over the government that was then led by the defendant. How could I possibly help my daughter get that position?" asked Dzulkefly.
When questioned by Najib's lawyer, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee, Dzulkefly said that his daughter had two appointments, one with AIM Solutions, which took place before he became a minister and the other with Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM), which took place after he became a minister.
However, Dzulkefly insisted that he was not aware of the two appointments.
In his witness statement, the Health Minister also said that he only found out about Nurul Iman's appointment after his daughter informed him that she had accepted the appointment.
Responding to questions from lawyer Stanley Sinappen representing him, the plaintiff said that he really wanted Nurul Iman to remain an academic because of her potential in that field.
"I am concerned about the transition from academia to the corporate world. She has potential as an academic, but I am happy with her choice," he said.
In his witness statement, the plaintiff stated that Najib uploaded the post as well as a screenshot of an article published by Sinar Harian dated January 28, 2019, which published her picture and referred to her.
He said that the post on the Facebook social site regarding the issue of nepotism and cronyism was edited six times, which indicated that the plaintiff used his power and influence as Health Minister to ensure that his daughter obtained the position.
He said the post, dated August 24, 2020, received 15,000 reactions, 594 comments and was shared 961 times while the Facebook page was owned and administered by Najib.
“The post was intended to damage my reputation and that of my family and cause serious embarrassment, as the defendant has a wide influence on Malaysians with a total of 4.5 million followers on Facebook.
“The defendant has tarnished my reputation personally and as a publicly known individual.
"My daughter's achievements have nothing to do with the structure of the organisation, but rather are based on her work and ability," he said.
In January 2022, Dzulkefly filed the suit in a personal capacity, claiming that Najib uploaded a defamatory post on Facebook on August 24, 2020, regarding the issue of cronyism, along with a screenshot of a Sinar Harian article dated January 28, 2019, with a picture of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed that the statement, among other things, meant that he practised cronyism by offering positions or appointments to family members without going through an objective assessment and ability for certain positions in the government or private companies.
The plaintiff claimed that Najib, as the defendant, had published the defamatory post with the intention of personally attacking her, humiliating and embarrassing her, and being politically motivated to defame and damage her reputation.
Najib, in his defence statement filed on March 29, 2022, claimed that the post on the issue of cronyism had nothing to do with Dzulkefly, but rather referred to the coalition of parties in Pakatan Harapan. (PH).
The trial before Judge Mahazan Mat Taib continues tomorrow. – April 7, 2026
