Azam is seeking RM100 million in damages over Bloomberg’s Feb 10 article titled “Malaysian anti-graft chief returns to stocks after outcry”, which alleged that he held 17.7 million shares in a financial services company.

The article also stated that Azam had not publicly declared his assets, and highlighted previous allegations made in 2021 regarding his shareholding, going on to reiterate the public controversy surrounding the allegations.

Law firm Zain Megat & Murad said they officially submitted a writ of summons and statement of claim at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, naming Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd as the defendants.

“This legal action has been initiated to vindicate our client’s reputation,” it said in a statement.

Azam is seeking an injunction to prevent Bloomberg from publishing the alleged defamatory statements or similar content, the article’s removal within three days of judgment, and an apology to be published in newspapers and social media approved by his lawyers.

He is also seeking an order for Bloomberg to cease further similar publications in the future, legal costs, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Azam maintains that he fully complied with all asset declaration requirements, disposed of the shares before they were issued, and has the legitimate financial means for his investments.

He says the article selectively presented facts, emphasised past controversies, and omitted mitigating details, creating a false narrative that he had acted improperly.

Despite clarifications and explanations provided to Bloomberg, he says, the publisher refused to correct or retract the statements, defending the report publicly instead.

He also says the article’s tone, structure, and publication were allegedly designed to create malice, mislead readers, and damage his personal reputation and the institutional integrity of the MACC.

Azam claims the defamatory statements were reckless, sensational, and inflammatory, causing public ridicule and undermining trust in both himself and the MACC.

The publication, he argues, was malicious, with intent to harm his reputation, despite the availability of verifiable facts confirming his compliance.

According to him, the alleged defamatory statements and innuendos continue to harm his standing and the credibility of Malaysia’s anti-corruption enforcement.