On 17 April 2024, at the commencement of Najib’s application to compel the federal government and the Pardons Board to produce a purported “supplementary order” from the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong, his lawyer requested leave proceedings to be heard in chambers before the High Court judge citing the sensitive matters of the case.
Following this, the High Court judge declared that proceedings be held in chambers, and barred members of the public from sitting in the proceedings even via video link.
By evening of the same date i.e. 17 April 2024, the media were already reporting on the proceedings in the day revealing that the `critical witness’ is the present Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) who affirmed in an affidavit supporting Najib’s application.
During an earlier hearing on 4 April 2024, Najib’s lawyer applied to the High Court for a short adjournment as they are waiting for a `crucial witness’ who at that time was still in Mecca to return and sign an affidavit in support of Najib's application for leave to initiate the judicial review.
Even though after proceedings, Najib’s lawyer citing a court order had warned the media not to report as to who the ‘critical witness’ is, the media proceeded to reveal the `critical witness’ after verifying with court officials that there is no protective order barring reports on the contents of the additional affidavit, including the affidavit filed by the `critical witness’.
Even Tengku Zafrul, cited in the affidavit of the ‘critical witness’, immediately in the same evening i.e 17 April 2024 issued a statement saying the affidavit of the critical witness contained certain factual errors and he would be taking steps to obtain appropriate legal advice and seek to write to the High Court to ask for permission or leave to file an affidavit to correct those errors, but did not disclose what they were.
Was the revelation on the identity of the `critical witness’ a sensitive matter?
Or the revelation that the critical witness made his assertion based on a scanned copy of the so called purported supplementary order he sighted from another Minister from his party UMNO?
Based on the affidavit reported, the `critical witness’ apparently did not sight or view the original of the so called purported supplementary order personally.
He was relying on a scanned copy that he sighted and stored in a mobile phone of another person to support his assertion.
What are so sensitive that the public and media are barred from the proceedings?
Or was the application to bar the public and media a subterfuge used to achieve one's goal i.e it was the media who revealed the identity of the ‘critical witness’ and not the applicant thus they can’t be held responsible for not keeping their end of the bargain of keeping the identity of everyone confidential.
Every day is a surprise, full of intrigue showcasing how the political elites schemed and backstabbed each other in politics in Malaysia.
FLK is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact Newswav.
