The classification of documents under the Official Secrets Act must be justified, allowing for judicial review to ensure the public's right to information, especially in legal contexts.

The Factual Background

[1] The background facts, as narrated by the plaintiff, are as follows.

[2] The plaintiff's husband, Amri Che' Mat, was allegedly abducted close to midnight on 24 November 2016 as he was driving along Jalan Padang Behor, not far from their family residence, towards Jitra, Kedah to meet up with his friend, one Abdul Jamil. While Amri was driving along the said road, three vehicles were said to have forced him to stop 500 meters from his house.

[3] The vehicle used by Amri, a Toyota Fortuner, was subsequently found in an abandoned construction site at Bukit Chabang at around 12.30am the next day.

[4] Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a civil suit against several public officers and the Government of Malaysia at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-21NCVC-79-11/2019 ("Suit No 79"). The claim in Suit No 79 centres on the failure of the defendants therein to effectively investigate the alleged abduction of Amri.

[5] Prior to the filing of Suit No 79, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia ("SUHAKAM") had commenced an inquiry on the alleged abduction. The inquiry was made pursuant to s 12 of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 ("the SUHAKAM Act").

[6] The inquiry was concluded on 6 March 2019.

[7] On 3 April 2019, SUHAKAM issued its report on the public inquiry ("the Report"). In the Report, at para 171, the SUHAKAM panel ("the Panel") states as follows:

171. The Panel is of the considered view that the enforced disappearance of Amri Che Mat was carried out by agents of the State, namely, the Special Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, within the definition of the first limb of art 2 of ICPPED.

ICPPED refers to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

[8] The Panel further concluded that there were several shortcomings in the investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police ("PDRM") into the disappearance of Amri. The shortcomings include the fact that the disappearance of Amri was classified as that of a missing person case instead of one of abduction.

[9] Subsequent to the release of the Report, the Minister of Home Affairs ("the Minister") announced in May 2019 that the Government of Malaysia, the 2nd respondent herein, had decided to set up a special task force ("the STF") to investigate the matters raised therein.

[10] On 16 January 2020, the Minister announced that the STF requested more time to complete its report. Unfortunately, according to the applicant, there was no response from the Government of Malaysia on the calls to make public the report from the STF, including one from SUHAKAM.

[11] On 25 May 2021, the plaintiff filed an application for discovery in Suit No 79 for the STF Report ("the STF Report") to be disclosed for the purpose of the action. The defendants in Suit No 79 objected to the discovery application and filed an affidavit in reply ("AIR-Suit No 79") through the 1st respondent, which was affirmed on 13 September 2021. The 1st respondent is the secretary to the Task Force.

[12] In AIR-Suit No 79, the 1st respondent asserted the STF Report was classified as an official secret ("the impugned Decision") under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (" OSA "). Para 6 of AIR-Suit No 79 states as follows:

Selanjutnya, merujuk kepada perenggan 5.7, 6, 7, 8.1,8.2 dan 8.3 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, saya sesungguhnya menyatakan bahawa Laporan Pasukan Petugas Khas tidak dapat dizahirkan kepada umum kerana Laporan tersebut merupakan maklumat terperingkat yang telah diklasifikasikan sebagai "Su