Affidavits must contain verifiable facts; hearsay and irrelevant content can be expunged.

[1] The present application before me by way of encl 12 deals with the Respondent's application for the following orders:

(i) That parts of the Affidavit affirmed by Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer on 14 February 2019 ("Hamid's Affidavit), filed in these proceedings and marked in Appendix A be expunged from the records of this Honourable Court;

(ii) That the costs of this application be borne and paid by Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer (NRIC: 550828-71-5003), the deponent of Hamid's Affidavit; and

(iii) Such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.

Brief Facts Of The Case

[2] The salient background facts can succinctly be summarised as follows:

(a) The late Mr Karpal Singh was charged with an offence under the Sedition Act, 1948. At the High Court, at the end of the defence case, he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of RM4000, in default, four months imprisonment;

(b) He then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and sentence vide Appeal no: W-05-78-03/2014 and W-05(S)-66-03/2014 which were heard together. The Court of Appeal presided by Dato Mohtaruddin Baki JCA, Dato Tengku Maimun JCA and Dato Kamardin Hashim JCA delivered a majority decision on 3 August 2016, wherein Dato Mohtaruddin Baki JCA and Dato Kamardin Hashim JCA affirmed the conviction by the High Court, while Dato Tengku Maimun JCA dissented (hereinafter referred to as 'the Karpal Singh sedition appeal').

(c) On 22 August 2018 the Applicant read an article published by an online media portal, Free Malaysia Today of the same day entitled 'Senior Judge interfered in Karpal's sedition appeal, says lawyer', regarding a statement made by a member of the Malaysian Bar, Encik Hanif Khathri bin Abdullah which, inter alia, stated:

'....a lawyer today claimed that the outcome of the late Karpal Singh's sedition appeal two years ago was altered due to judicial interference by a senior judge.

Mohamed Haniff Khathri Abdullah said he was recently informed of the matter where the judge reportedly meddled in the majority decision to allow Karpal's appeal and acquit him of the charge. The appeal Court (sic) was asked to reverse the ruling, the lawyer who usually appeared for Tun Mahathir Mohammad in civil cases said in a Facebook Post.'

(d) The Applicant lodged a police report the following day, asking for an investigation to be commenced in relation to the entire contents of the said Free Malaysia Today publication. The applicant explained that she was of the view that the public statement made by Encik Haniff Khathri and published in the said 'Free Malaysia Today publication, in relation to judicial interference within the Malaysian judiciary and also questioned the validity of the Karpal Singh Sedition Appeal decision which warranted urgent investigations;

(e) Soon after lodging the said police report, the applicant provided the police with a statement as requested by the police;

(f) About one week prior to the said Free Malaysia Today publication, on 16 August 2018, Justice Datuk Dr Haji Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer, a sitting judge of Court of Appeal, delivered a speech at the International Malaysia Law Conference in which he publicly declared that he was severely reprimanded by a top judge for deciding in favour of one Indira Ghandi in the case of Indira Ghandi a/p Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & 5 Others on 30 December 2015.

(g) Pursuant to a Malaysiakini report dated 31 August 2018 entitled 'CJ looking into judicial meddling claims', it was reported, inter alia, as follows with regard to the Respondent.

"...an internal probe is being conducted following allegation of senior judges interfering in two high-profile cases