Abdul Wahab Patail J:

When I delivered my decision on 4 September 1998, I had stated that I will issue the written reasons later. I do so now.

The background of this application ('the original application') is as follows.

The applicant, Nallakaruppan a/l Solaimalai, having been charged on 12 August 1998 with an offence under s. 57(1)(b) of the Internal Security Act 1960, has been remanded into custody at Sungai Buloh prison. On 13 August 1998, pursuant to an application ('exh. OM-1') of the same date, the Director General of Prisons ('the DGP') issued an order ('exh. OM-2') under s. 31(1)(a) of the Prisons Act 1995 ('the Act'), transferring the applicant to Bukit Aman Police Headquarters lockup ('Bukit Aman'), where he has been held since.

This application, supported by the affidavit of the applicant, was filed under a certificate of urgency on 25 August 1998, for the following orders ('the original application'):

(1) pemohon dipulangkan dengan segera ke Penjara Sg Buloh untuk direman di sana sehingga perintah selanjutnya oleh mahkamah yang mulia ini; and

(2) lain-lain relif atau relif yang selanjutnya seperti itu yang difikirkan sesuai oleh mahkamah yang mulia ini.

When the application came up for hearing, there were a number of associated applications.

The First Application

On 1 September 1998, being the date of hearing requested by the applicant, En Azahar for the respondents applied for a two day adjournment to file their reply. The application not being objected to, was adjourned to 3 September 1998.

The Second Application

On the morning of 3 September 1998, the respondents filed four affidavits in reply. Mr Manjeet Singh for the applicant, applied to the court for adjournment to the afternoon on the basis that the affidavits that were served on the applicant at 8.25am, required careful study and attention, and there may be the need to cross-examine all four deponents for the respondents.

The request for adjournment to the afternoon was granted without objection.

The Third Application

Mr Manjeet Singh, on the ground that at first glance, the affidavits seem to contain material that has no place before the court, contended that they may have to be expunged or excluded; also that since the material seemed scandalous, he applied for the affidavits to be sealed from the public until the same has been ruled upon in the afternoon.

En Azahar objected, submitting that the affidavits filed that morning are public documents and has been filed to reply to and to rebut very serious allegations by the applicant. He added that although the applicant's application was published in the newspapers on 26 August 1998, the respondents were served with the application only at 3.55pm on 26 August 1998. He submitted the relevant articles from 'The Star', 'Utusan Malaysia' 'The Sun', and 'The New Straits Times' of that date.

To this, Mr Manjeet Singh replied that the affidavits went well beyond the relevant, extending to personalities who were not in court to defend themselves when in fact, the court is concerned with the applicant.

The original application is by way of a notice of motion and heard in open court. The proceedings before a criminal court, even when it is quasi-criminal, is open to the public. The evidence of witnesses in a criminal court are routinely reported. Affidavit evidence presented as the evidence of a witness, is no different from any other evidence in this respect. It is a fundamental truth that justice cannot be seen to be done if conducted under a shroud of secrecy. Therefore, the public should not be restricted from evidence produced in court proceedings unless valid and cogent reasons are advanced. The onus is on the applicant to show such valid and cogent reasons. Until an order is made to the contrary, the affidavits remain open.

Lest it be overlooked, the court does not order, and is not ordering, the release of the affidavits filed in court to the public. The concern of the applicant, as I