Karim Khan, the international lawyer for Dr. Saif al-Islam, the son of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi, accused the British Telegraph of publishing false, misleading and defamatory articles about his client’s possession of a London home.
In a statement to the newspaper, Khan demanded the withdrawal of false and unfounded articles, titled “Take a look at a London house believed to belong to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and immediately apologise for it and publish a correction confirming that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is not the owner of the above-mentioned property. Escalating measures if they do not comply with these demands.
Khan said Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi had no connection to the house and that the information was wrong. That the articles would create a false impression of his reputation. Deliberately slandering and alleging that he spent millions of pounds on a luxury home and lifestyle in one of London’s richest locations.
Khan asked the newspaper to remove the articles and apologise to Dr. Saif Gaddafi and published a correction. He confirms that Dr. Gaddafi is not the owner of the property mentioned above.
The lawyer, Karim Khan, gave the British Telegraph newspaper 14 days to respond, so that no further legal action would be taken, stressing at the same time that Dr. Saif al-Qadhafi retains the right to either sue for libel or to file a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation .
“I am aware that this claim is outside the normal period of one year from the date of publication of the articles for the first time, but because the articles were published before the implementation of the defamation law for 2013 and before the “one-time rule”. These two articles apply, so each new “visit” to the webpage is a new publication of the article, which gives us a reason to take action. ”
“In any event, Dr. Saif al-Qadhafi will seek to extend the period of limitation in accordance with Article 32A of the Limit Law of 1980. It is well known that Saif al-Qadhafi was held imprisoned for several years since the date of publication of the articles, meaning that he was not in a position to pursue this is the case earlier. Given that, it is clear that it is fair to be allowed to take the necessary action. ”
via: Libya 24