The court determined inherent jurisdiction under r 137 cannot substitute statutory provisions, and the applicant failed to meet criteria for admitting additional evidence.

Preliminary

[1] This is an application by the applicant, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, by way of motion for the oral testimony of Dato Ramli bin Yusuff ("Dato Ramli") to be taken by this court pursuant to s 93 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("CJA 1964"). The oral testimony of Dato Ramli is sought to be used as evidence at the hearing of his application dated 30 April 2015 for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by this court under r 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995 ("RFC 1995") to review his case. This court had earlier dismissed on 10 February 2015 the applicants appeal against the decision of the court of Appeal in allowing the appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the High court in acquitting and discharging the applicant for the offence of sodomy punishable under s 377B of the Penal Code.

[2] In the affidavit in support of his application, the applicant exhibited the witness statement (exh AE-1) given by Dato Ramli as part of Dato Ramlis sworn testimony in the case of Kuala Lumpur High court Civil Suit No: S-221-249-2009 ("the civil suit"). The factual circumstances as narrated in the witness statement of Dato Ramli in the said civil suit are in relation to the so called "black eye" incident wherein the applicant had suffered injury in his eye as a result of being punched by the former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor, and the alleged conspiracy by the former Attorney General, Tan Sri Gani Patail, and the former IGP, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, to stage a cover-up of the incident.

[3] We reproduce herein the relevant paras 18 to 23 of the witness statement of Dato Ramli relating to the "black eye" incident as follows:

"18. Q: What was the "Black Eye" incident about?

A: When Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim was initially detained in 1998, the situation was very tense. When Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim was produced in court after his detention, he had a black eye. There was widespread public outrage at what had happened which led to the forming of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to ascertain who had caused Anwar Ibrahims black eye.

19. Q: How were you involved in the "Black Eye" incident?

A: I was the main witness of the "Black Eye" incident which took place on 20 September 1998 and I was the one who pulled Tan Sri Rahim Noor out of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahims cell with the help of the former Director of CID, Dato Yaacob Mohd Amin. I was then asked by Tan Sri Musa Hassan who was the then Deputy Director of CID (Legal and Prosecution) to fabricate evidence.

20. Q: How did he ask you to fabricate evidence?

A: A few days after the incident, Tan Sri Musa Hassan came to see me. He informed me that he was sent by the late AG Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah and Tan Sri Gani Patail. He asked me to lodge a police report against Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim to say that he, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim had lodged a false report against Tan Sri Rahim Noor and to arrange for a doctor to give an expert report that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim had inflicted the injuries on himself. This "expert report" was needed to show that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahims injuries were not caused by any assault and to counter and/or neutralise other reports made by various doctors.

21. Q: How did you respond to Tan Sri Musa Hassan?

A: I refused to do it. I told him off and gave him a piece of my mind. I also told him that he and Tan Sri Gani Patail were both at the 30th floor of Bukit Aman on the night of 20 September 1998 and were clearly aware that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim was assaulted. Because of the position that I took, I was seen as disloyal by Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail.

22. Q: Did you tell anyone about this?

A