Judicial Commissioner Gan Techiong allowed the adjournment to give Mahathir’s lawyer time to take instructions from their client.

During the proceedings, Gan reminded both parties of the serious nature of contempt proceedings which allow a judge to jail, fine or reprimand a contemptor.

When proceedings began, lawyer Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman, appearing for Zahid, applied to play videos captured by Malaysia Gazette TV and KiniTV of Mahathir speaking to the media on Dec 5 soon after testifying in his defamation suit.

Shahrul said the press conference was pre-planned as Mahathir was seen preparing to talk to reporters.

Counsel Nizam Bashir objected to the videos being played, saying Zahid, the Umno president, did not produce a certificate to prove the authenticity of the footage, as required under Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950.

However, Gan said, even if there was an irregularity, it would be curable.

Mahathir, who was present in court today, was allowed to watch the videos, which lasted two and five minutes respectively, from the Bar table.

Gan also rescheduled Zahid’s rebuttal evidence for May 15.

On Jan 7, Gan granted Zahid leave to initiate contempt proceedings against Mahathir based on the contents of the videos.

Mahathir had opposed the application, arguing that the contempt proceedings brought against him were purely to delay the ongoing defamation trial.

Mahathir said he had merely repeated to the media what he had testified during the trial of his libel suit against Zahid.

He said there was no gag order in place to stop the media from reporting the proceedings or bar him from speaking to the press.

Mahathir said since there was no jury trial, the sub judice rule did not apply as Gan, as the trier of fact and law, could not be easily swayed.

During the press conference, Mahathir produced copies of his identity card as well as his and his children’s birth certificates.

Zahid claimed the media conference had breached the sub judice rule, potentially impairing the integrity and independence of the judiciary in administering justice.

Mahathir filed the defamation suit in 2022, alleging that Zahid had used the name “Kutty” as a derogatory reference to him.

Zahid is alleged to have made the remark at an Umno divisional meeting in Kelana Jaya, Selangor, on July 30, 2017.

Mahathir claims the remark implied that he was not born a Malay or a Muslim, and that his original name was Mahathir son of Iskandar Kutty.

It also implied that the name Mahathir Mohamad was used to profit himself politically and personally, the former prime minister said.

In his defence, Zahid said the name referred to an individual based on information contained in a copy of an old identity card.