Elements seemed to be looking up in May 2021 for thirty six indigenous communities combating logging concessions within Malaysia’s Sarawak condition.
Subsidiaries of Samling Team, a Malaysian conglomerate, were certified to log forest places across more than two, 500 square kilometres (965 square miles) in Sarawak, located on the island of Borneo. The Penan, Kenyah and Jamok residential areas native to the area argued the snack bars were granted without having their informed consent and lodged a complaint with the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC).
“The communities involved are very hopeful, ” Penan leader Komeok Joe told Al Jazeera .
A month later, Samling filed a defamation lawsuit in excess of $1 million against SAVE Streams, a nonprofit company supporting the neighborhoods and publicising the conflict. Since then, neighborhood groups said, the lawsuit has successfully stalled the complaint.
The lawsuit fits the pattern becoming increasingly common in the Global South, according to advocates. Referred to as “Strategic Lawsuit Towards Public Participation” (SLAPP), the cases involve powerful corporate actors levying defamation or even slander charges towards communities, activists or even journalists with much less resources.
“The signing has continued. CONSERVE Rivers is now silenced because they can’t say anything because of the SLAPP suit, ” stated Jettie Word, professional director of The Borneo Project, a woodland protection group.
In a letter to the MTCC, Sarawak leaders and assistance organisations declared the lawsuit to be a SLAPP and called within the council to safeguard against similar litigation.
“This units a worrying precedent: Inspired by Samling’s lawsuit against CONSERVE Rivers, any certified company may later on bring forward a lawsuit against a well-intentioned complainant, the legal action will silence nearby opposition and delay the complaints procedure, ” the notice said.
Lawsuits dropping into the SLAPP realm typically involve several key characteristics. They may be carried out by private actors such as companies against groups or people with less resources. They also target community participation such as activism, advocacy or journalism and tend to include high damages or exorbitant demands.
The purpose of such suits is not always to win, based on experts. They are rather meant to silence criticism and drain the particular defendants of funds through a court program that gives their statements a veneer associated with legitimacy.
Although there isn’t comprehensive global data available about SLAPPs, in the Global South they have tended to be within the agriculture and mining industries, said Nikhil Dutta, a global legal adviser at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law who recently penned a report on the trend.
“You’re trying to make a SLAPP masquerade as an common lawsuit, and that is part of the SLAPP’s strength, is that it looks like a typical and legitimate legal action, even though it’s actually being filed for your purposes of harassment and also to drain the assets of people being targeted, ” Dutta said, adding that ICNL anecdotally has received an increasing number of reports of SLAPPs filed within the Global South in recent years.
Greater than a dozen American states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws, along with areas of Canada and Australia. But those surgery are fewer in Southeast Asia, where Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia are the only countries to safeguard against SLAPP matches through reforms which have had varying degrees of success, according to Dutta.
You’re trying to make a SLAPP masquerade being an ordinary lawsuit, and that’s part of the SLAPP’s power”
Nikhil Dutta, global legal adviser at the International Center to get Not-for-Profit Law
Malaysia does not have specific laws to prevent SLAPPs, although in 2016 the Malaysia Court of Appeal upheld the particular dismissal of a libel and slander case against activists that spoke out against a mining corporation. The decision commended the particular activists’ contributions to society.
Organisations supporting the Sarawak communities said Samling’s lawsuit comes after the pattern. They argued in the MTCC letter that press releases and publications Samling deemed defamation simply expressed “legitimate community concerns” and the corporation seemed to be delaying the particular complaint process with all the lawsuit.
The lawsuit’s $1. 18 million harm request stems from harm supposedly incurred by seven SAVE Streams press releases published over about 18 months, although the lawsuit did not detail exact losses, based on an August 2021 Mongabay report. The complaint furthermore targeted four CONSERVE Rivers directors.
“Of course there is a chilling impact, ” said Lukas Straumann, executive movie director of the environmental and human rights company Bruno Manser Finance, which supports SAVE Rivers and co-signed the letter.
“As soon as you go to court – or a large player goes to courtroom – with a lot of cash behind them, and a lot of political support, then points start changing, ” he said.
“Being sued means that you have turn out to be dangerous to the people who are suing a person, ” Straumann mentioned. “Usually they would ignore you. And for many years they ignored CONSERVE Rivers, but apparently they realised, ‘This is getting dangerous and we have to do something. ’ Using the legal program to your advantage is something very handy. ”
Samling did not respond to a request for comment on the situation. In the past, the company provides denied the allegations and published statements refuting mass media articles, including a recent post addressing the particular SLAPP characterisation.
“With all of the efforts for an amicable resolution having unsuccessful, Samling was still left with little choice but to institute a legal suit towards Save Rivers to be able to defend and safeguard its reputation plus business interests, along with preserve the sincerity of the certification body, ” Samling stated.
“Instead of continuously labelling the Samling fit as an ‘alleged SLAPP suit, ’ the two bodies should present their case to the Court and allow the Court to decide the rights and wrongs of the case, ” the company added.
As recognition of SLAPP suits rises, defendants have often defeated them and even observed sanctions against plaintiffs. But the costs may include time, money plus reputation.
In South Africa, Wraypex Pty. Ltd. sued several conservationists who else put forth an issue about the company’s suggested luxury development, based on the ICNL report. The court dismissed the case in 2011 and purchased Wraypex to pay problems, referring to the litigation as “vexatious, ” economically “purposeless” plus “if anything had been more harmful to the Plaintiff than the words and phrases complained of. ”
Inside a 2021 case, Southern Africa’s High Court deemed defamation lawsuits by an Aussie mining company against activists to be SLAPP activity, with the judge adding that the purpose “is to quiet those challenging powerful corporates on problems of public issue. ”
Among 48 recent cases in which a personality was reported, about three-quarters favoured the particular defendant, Dutta stated. But because SLAPP cases often drag on for years, defendants usually experience irreversible monetary and reputational harm even if they eventually win.
Bruno Manser Fund’s Straumann has handled years of litigation submitted by Jamilah Taib Murray, the daughter of Sarawak Chief excutive Abdul Taib Mahmud, over the organisation’s reports linking her in order to corruption. The lawsuit also named Straumann personally.
“As an individual, you would not be in a position to uphold anything. You’d just be forced to retract everything because it’s simply too expensive, ” this individual said. “You require strong institutional support. ”
Educating court systems to recognise SLAPPs assists shorten the lawsuit process and discourage other companies from submitting them in the future. Nations also should reinforce legislation and adjustment of protections for free speech and general public participation, Dutta said.
“The best case result is to not only obtain dismissal of the situation, but to have the courtroom recognise that quarrelling that a case is really a SLAPP is in itself a valid grounds designed for dismissing a case, ” Dutta said.
For Sarawak communities and SAVE Rivers, the next tips are “a bit of an open question, ” Word of The Borneo Project said.
In addition to penning the MTCC letter, a delegation of Sarawak representatives talked with Dutch officials in May, garnering what Word described as encouraging attention from Malaysia’s top timber customer. The suit also was highlighted in a anti-SLAPP conference in Switzerland.
But by silencing the communities’ longtime advocate and stalling the complaint process, the lawsuit has made it more difficult than ever to speak out, she mentioned.
“What are communities intended to? They can’t obtain anywhere by trying to reach out to companies them selves or the MTCC or filing an issue with anyone. Nothing works, ” Phrase said. “And in case advocacy organisations are advocating on their behalf, they’re getting shut away and silenced by these SLAPP matches. ”