Defamation is not easy to prove. Firstly, what was the words spoken by A to the police that was defamatory to B? B has to find out and plead (state) in his Statement of Claim in the civil suit as to what the exact words were.

Secondly, how did he know that A was the one who tipped off the police? Any concrete evidence?

This scenario does not come under OSA.

I'm wondering how B found out that A was the one who informed the police. Hope you can shed some light. Otherwise I can advise on the merits of the case.

Don't just look at Sec 24(3). Start with Section 24(1) - protection of informers under this Act. This Act refers to Official Secrets.

Look at the definition of Official Secret:
“official secret” means any document specified in the Schedule and any information and material relating thereto and includes any
other official document, information and material as may be classified as “Top Secret”, “Secret”, “Confidential” or “Restricted”, as the
case may be, by a Minister, the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of a State or such public officer appointed under section 2B.

The Schedule further defines the documents as:
"Cabinet documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of cabinet committees; State Executive Council documents, records of decisions and deliberations including
those of State Executive Council committees; Documents concerning national security, defence and international relations.

I strongly doubt that a police tip off regarding a drug user would fall under the definition of Official Secret.

That is my opinion.

Reliable source? That's all? A can easily deny.

1. I'm not implying anything. I'm trying to explain to you that in law, the burden of proof is upon who alleges. Now B alleges that A defamed him by making a false tip off. The defamatory statement could be that B is a drug user. So B files a civil suit against A.

Now, under the law, it is B who has to lead evidence of the defamation, and that A was the who defamed B. it is not for B turn around and ask A to prove that he did NOT defame B. B has to call the police officers who personally heard A tip off/complain against B, uttering the defamatory words in the process. Of course, the exact words sopken must be proved and the words must be defamatory in nature.

Once that is proven, then the tables are turned and the burden of proof shifts to A to show a defence as to why he uttered those defamatory words. I A fails to discharge the burden of proof, then judgment will be given to B and damages will be awarded to B which A has to pay.

2. The Court can grant a mandatory injunction, but B must first show some form of evidence against the police officers. If there is nothing in writing, what is stopping the police officers from turning up in Court and deny having heard anything from A? You force them via a Court order and they in turn offer no assistance. If it was a police report then there might be a chance. If it was a verbal tip off then it's going to be an uphill battle to gather evidence as oral evidence is easily denied and offers little evidenciary value.

2. The Court can grant a mandatory injunction, but B must first show some form of evidence against the police officers. If there is nothing in writing, what is stopping the police officers from turning up in Court and deny having heard anything from A? You force them via a Court order and they in turn offer no assistance. If it was a police report then there might be a chance. If it was a verbal tip off then it's going to be an uphill battle to gather evidence as oral evidence is easily denied and offers little evidenciary value.

Take legal action via a civil suit? Under what grounds?

To get an injunction is not easy. B cannot merely state that 'he believes' or 'he thinks' that A is the one who defamed him to the police. Right now, B only hears it from third parties, am I right? How was this communicated to B by those third parties? Verbally? Tough if like that. If SMS or email, then probably that can be printed out an annexed in the application for an injunction.

Now you state that "B was told just recently that the police do record every word in writing". So, who is this person who told B about this? Can this person affirm an affidavit to support B's application? Would the parties who told B that it was A who tipped off the police be ready to step in as witnesses on behalf of B? If the answer is no to those questions, how is B going to even establish a prima facie case against A? Without a prima facie case, an injunction will not be given.
I asked you on what grounds you want to take legal action. I didn't say that there is no basis for one.
The police has powers to arrest and detain without warrant for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The requirement is that there must be reasonable suspicion.. Many have tried to sue the police for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution but has failed as the test of reasonable suspicion is easily established by the police and the burden is upon the plaintiff to then proof the existence of malice. Malice is not easy to proof as the police would have no other ulterior motive to detain the plaintiff as it is their duty to do so.

Without a shred of evidence? Of course evidence is only gathered upon arrest. Without arrest, search, inspection and interrogation - how would you expect the police to gather evidence?

1. How would I know when I have not even seen a copy of the statement of claim filed by B. If he had appointed lawyers and they had filed the claim, surely there would be some basis for it which either you are not aware or or which you have not stated here in the thread. I am in no position to comment on the chances of the civil suit. Hope you understand that.

2. A cannot sue B for "reporting A without evidence". There is no such cause of action. If B lodges a report based on reasonable suspicion (he should mention the previous incidents of threats and harassment by A to justify his suspicion) then there is nothing to worry.

Advice given is within the scope of this thread so that everyone can benefit from an answer. You have appointed a lawyer to act for you. It's best for you to just trust your lawyer and let him do his best for you.

Can't advise much without looking at the report itself. As long as B words it in neutral language, it should be alright. Do note that defamation via a police report is so longer a cause of action as the person who lodged it is protected under the defence of absolute privilege, pursuant to a decision of the Court of Appeal in Abdul Manaf Ahmad's case reported in 2009. That is the law as it stands.

It would be dismissed with costs, as I said. For civil cases there's no such things as penalty/punishment if you lose a civil case. You just have to pay costs to the other side.
What demand are you referring to now?