Counselor Hasnal Rezua Merican says his customer, Mazlan Ismail, and TV3 have agreed to register permission.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Supreme Court adjourned today until next Wednesday to file a possible settlement of a slander, submitted by Anwar Ibrahim against Mazlan Ismail, Sistem Televisy and Malaysia Bhd (TV3) and Utusan Melayu.
The PKR leader had filed the case against Mazlan, who was the Barisan Nasional candidate for the constituency of Permatang Pauh during the general elections in 2013, and the media controlled by Umno because he meant that he was the judiciary and the chambers of the Attorney General had bribed.
Mazlan's board Hasnal Rezua Merican said that his client and TV3 had agreed to register a consent judgment.
Hasnal, however, said that the settlement was not Utusan Melayu.
"They (Mazlan and TV3) agreed to withdraw the article, to apologize and pay the costs, but the draw of the withdrawal and apology has yet to be prepared.
"The consent verdict will be registered on Wednesday.
"Since Mazlan is doing his haj in Mecca and will not be until 19 September, the court read out his apology for open case law on 28 September," he said.
Attorney Azhar Arman Ali, representative of Utusan Melayu, said that it was up to his client whether they wanted to continue with the case or enter into an amicable arrangement.
"I have indicated to the judge that there is a possibility for a settlement," he said.
The suit came about when Mazlan, who defeated Anwar in the general election in 2013, claimed to have received letters claiming that Anwar had paid his lawyer, the deceased Karpal Singh, more than RM50 million since 2008 as legal fees and bribes for judges and prosecutors.
When the statement was made, Anwar said he was opposition leader and Permatang Pauh MP, and the accusation made him look low in the eyes of the public.
Karpal, Anwar & # 39; s chief lawyer in a case for sexual misconduct, was killed during a car accident on April 17, 2014.
Anwar strives for an undetermined amount of compensation, costs and other assistance that is deemed appropriate by the court.
He said that the statement of the defendants implied that he was a politician who lacked integrity, was of low morale and unfit to hold a public office while offering bribes.