JUDGMENT

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC:

I. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff vide Encl 63 seeks to recuse me from further hearing this matter. The application is made pursuant to O 92(4) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012). The Defendant opposes this application where the parties have exchanged affidavits and written submissions. After hearing parties and analysing the application properly, I decided to dismiss encl 63 on the reasons set forth below.

II. Background Facts

[2] This defamation suit was filed on 31 December 2021, arising from alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant via a Facebook post.

[3] It involves two prominent political figures: Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly bin Ahmad (former Health Minister) as the plaintiff and Dato' Seri Najib bin Tun Razak (former Prime Minister) as the defendant. The case was transferred to this Court from another Court since January 2022 and I am the 2nd Judge to hear it upon the transfer of the earlier judge in December 2023.

[4] The case experienced several trial postponements, with original trial dates set for 4-6 June 2024 being vacated due to the discharge of the plaintiff's first set of solicitors. Subsequent trial dates, scheduled for 5-7 March 2025, were also postponed due to potential settlement discussions.

III. Extended Settlement Negotiations

[5] Settlement discussions started as early as May 2024, with both parties requesting postponement on several occasions. On 7 March 2025, both parties' solicitors came to see me in chambers to update me on their settlement progress. They both said there is a 95% chance of settlement, with the proposed settlement agreement being drafted, save for only minor issues left outstanding to be agreed upon. The parties requested confidentiality and stated that they would file a Notice of Discontinuance rather than a formal settlement agreement. However, negotiations stalled when the defendant's feedback on a draft apology was only received on 28 March 2025, during the Raya holiday period.

[6] When parties approached me on 7 March 2025 to inform me that they still required more time to settle, I directed them to provide updates on the settlement process and to confirm the filing of the Notice of Discontinuance (NOD) by 7 April 2025 for the next Case Management (CM) review. I further indicated that if the parties can reach an earlier resolution, the filing of the NOD would be sufficient to resolve the case, and the scheduled CM would be vacated.

[7] On 7 April 2025, during the CM by e-review, I directed that the NOD be filed by 21 April 2025, failing which, it will result in the action being struck off on 21 April 2025. I further stated that this Court will make the order justifiable without the presence of the parties. I further confirmed that the parties' presence on 21 April 2025 is dispensed with, but they need to file the NOD by that very day.

[8] The Plaintiff then filed their letter dated 14 April 2025, copied to the former YAA CJ (Tun Tengku Maimun Bt Tuan Mat) and YAA CJM. Following suit, on 15 April 2025, this application encl 63 to recuse me from sitting as the judge hearing this case, which was filed with a certificate of urgency.

IV. Case Overview

(a) Primary Basis For Recusal: Family Connection

[9] The central allegation centres on my family relationship to Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Bin Ali (TSAA), who served as Attorney General and was appointed by the defendant in 2016. The plaintiff's counsel argues this connection creates actual or perceived bias, particularly given that TSAA's appointment by the defendant is "known to the public." They contend this relationship compromises my appearance of judicial neutrality in this case involving his appointee.

[10] Plaintiff's counsel alleges bias due to my family connection to TSAA, who served as Attorney General and was appointed by the defendant in 2016, that they contend this relationship fosters actual or perceived bias that damages public confidence in the judiciary. They also claim that I had threatened