HEALTH Minister Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad told the High Court today that his decision to file a RM5 million defamation suit against Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak was not motivated by a desire to destroy the former prime minister politically.
Dzulkefly, 70, said this during cross-examination by Najib’s counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on the second day of the trial over a Facebook post published in August 2020, which alleged that he had practised nepotism to secure his daughter Nurul Iman’s appointment as a board member of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia.
When asked by Muhammad Shafee whether he had sued two individuals, namely Najib and Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, Dzulkefly confirmed this, but said the matter involving Asyraf Wajdi had been settled.
According to Bernama, the minister also clarified that he had not initiated any legal action against newspapers for reporting similar issues.
Muhammad Shafee suggested that Dzulkefly had sued his client as a way to destroy him so that he would never again return to the political arena, to which Dzulkefly replied, “No.”
Meanwhile, when questioned by his counsel, Stanley Sebastian Sinnappen, on whether there was any truth to the suggestion that he intended to destroy Najib politically, Dzulkefly replied, “The question was a bit bizarre. I don't think there is any truth in it.”
Asked why he chose to sue Najib, the minister said the Facebook posting was a direct reference to both him and his daughter.
“It was clearly geared not just to accuse, but to attack me over my daughter’s appointment. To me, it amounts to defamation, no less than that, and was meant to put my reputation into disrepute in the eyes of the public,” he said.
When questioned by Najib’s other counsel, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee, Dzulkefly acknowledged that the Facebook post could be considered part and parcel of regular political discourse and public criticism, which any member of the public is entitled to raise.
“Yes, but it must be done responsibly. You have the right to speak, but you must observe proper decorum and etiquette. Criticism should not simply amount to accusations against anyone.
You have your right, as long as it does not cross into defamation,” said the minister. The lawyer also suggested that his client’s Aug 24, 2020, posting was merely expressing concerns over what could be perceived as political appointments, cronyism, and nepotism — criticisms commonly raised by politicians across the political divide, reported Bernama.
Muhammad Farhan further put to the plaintiff that when Najib published the post, he was essentially doing the same, merely expressing concerns over political appointments, cronyism, and nepotism. Dzulkefly responded,
“He (Najib) himself knows the intention behind posting it 19 months after (the appointment of Nurul Iman).” Nurul Iman was appointed to the board of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia, a government-linked trust body, in October 2018, while Dzulkefly became minister in May 2018.
After the minister concluded his testimony, the court began hearing statements from Nurul Aiman.
The hearing before Judge Mahazan Mat Taib will continue tomorrow.
Dzulkefly filed the suit in January 2022, alleging that Najib published a defamatory Facebook post about him on Aug 24, 2020. He claimed the post implied that he had practised nepotism to ensure his daughter’s appointment as a board member of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia.
He further alleged the statement was published with the intent to humiliate him and was politically motivated to tarnish his reputation.
Najib, in his statement of defence filed on March 29, 2022, contended that the post was not directed at Dzulkefly but at the Pakatan Harapan coalition. – April 8, 2026
