KUALA LUMPUR, July 6 — The High Court today fixed October 12 to hear an inter partes interim injunction application by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) against blogger Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris, better known as Papagomo, in a defamation suit.

Judicial Commissioner Datuk Dr Arik Sanusi Yeop Johari set the date during case management, which was also attended by defence counsel Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali.

“The parties are to file the affidavit in reply by July 20, the affidavit in response by August 3, written submissions by August 24 and reply submissions by September 7. The court also extends the ad interim injunction,” the judge said.

On June 19, the court granted an ex parte interim injunction sought by the MCMC, restraining Wan Muhammad Azri from publishing allegedly defamatory statements against the commission and ordering him to immediately cease publishing and disseminating harmful online content through social media.

The order also prohibits Wan Muhammad Azri from using any social media platform, whether through existing or new accounts, to publish or distribute false, misleading or harmful content.

Earlier, MCMC counsel Nurshafiqa Balqish Jaffri informed the court that Wan Muhammad Azri had entered an appearance in the suit.

“Today was fixed for the inter partes hearing. However, the defendant has entered an appearance, and both parties have agreed that the inter partes hearing will proceed after the exchange of affidavits. I also seek an extension of the ad interim injunction until the disposal of this application,” she said.

Muhammad Rafique confirmed the arrangement.

On May 27, the MCMC filed the suit, alleging that Wan Muhammad Azri had posted defamatory statements on social media claiming the commission had censored court reports relating to Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil’s case against him.

In its statement of claim, the MCMC said it had never been involved in any form of censorship regarding reports on the Kuala Lumpur High Court proceedings involving Fahmi and the defendant.

The commission maintained that the defendant’s allegations were false, baseless and had undermined public confidence in the regulator. — Bernama