PUTRAJAYA, Feb 24 — The Court of Appeal has allowed Datuk Seri Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad’s appeal to recuse Judicial Commissioner (JC) Arziah Mohamed Apandi from presiding over his RM5 million defamation suit against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
A three-member bench led by Justice Datuk Choo Kah Sing, along with Justices Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, unanimously held that there was merit in the Health Minister’s appeal.
The court also ordered that the case be remitted to the High Court for hearing by a different judge or judicial commissioner.
The court found that directions given by Arziah during last year’s case management created a real danger of bias, as Dr Dzulkefly was not given the option to proceed with mitigation to ventilate his case.
“The JC was alleged to have said that ‘if the matter is not settled, it will be struck out,’ which is almost tantamount to a threat. There are sufficient elements of bias to evoke a real danger of bias,” said Justice Choo.
However, the bench made it clear that the real danger of bias was confined to Arziah’s remarks and did not arise from her relationship with her father. Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was the Attorney General during Najib’s tenure.
After the proceedings, Najib’s legal team confirmed that the matter is fixed for case management at the High Court tomorrow and that they will not be appealing today’s ruling.
Dzulkefly filed the recusal application on April 14, 2025, claiming there was bias based on remarks made by Arziah during case management on March 7 and April 7, 2025.
On July 29, 2025, Arziah dismissed the application, ruling that Dr Dzulkefly failed to prove any real risk of bias arising from her earlier directions or from the fact that she is Apandi's daughter. He then filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Dr Dzulkefly filed the suit in his personal capacity against Najib on December 31, 2021, claiming that Najib’s post, which alleged that Dr Dzulkefly was practising cronyism by awarding positions or appointments to relatives without properly assessing their qualifications or suitability, was defamatory.
He further claimed that the defendant had published the statement with the intent to attack his character, degrade and humiliate him, and that the post was politically motivated with the express purpose of defaming him and tarnishing his reputation.
However, in his statement of defence on March 29, 2022, Najib contended that the post was not connected to Dr Dzulkefly but was directed at the Pakatan Harapan coalition.
