Updated version The High Court hearing the Al-Maunah "treason" trial today admitted evidence regarding a threat and demands made to the military by an unidentified caller, but ruled that the contents of the conversation could not be disclosed to the public.

Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin said that the contents of the conversation may be prejudicial to the 29 accused persons in the trial.

The threat was made the day after two army camps in Grik, Perak, were raided on July 2.

"In light of the evidence adduced and the identity of the caller which is not known, and considering that the contents maybe be prejudicial to the accused, I order that the contents are not to be reported outside of this court," he said.

Malaysiakini , which has uploaded a report on the court proceedings this morning, has since removed it from the website after the ruling was made.

Zulkefli also overruled an objection raised by defence counsel Karpal Singh who said that the evidence adduced by Left Mohd Nizam Husin, an officer in charge in the Grik army camp, was inadmissable as it was merely hearsay evidence.

Mohd Nizam told the court this morning that he received a call from an unidentified person through the army communication radio at 4.58pm on July 3, the day after the arms store in his post was raided.

He read out a four-page transcription of the conversation which he had recorded in his note book at the time of the conversation.

'Prejudicial evidence'

Karpal, however, said that the statement was hearsay as there is no evidence of the identity of the person on the other side of the conversation.

"This is highly prejudicial evidence. It is hearsay because what is purported to have been said by another person which leads to this witness recording certain statements made by the unidentified person," Karpal said.

Karpal also said that in the event the prosecution was relying on the provisions of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations (Escar), it could still not adduce as evidence the statement as the provisions of the regulations only refer to evidence given by the defendants.

At this juncture Attorney-General Mohtar Abdullah assured the court that the prosecution was not relying on using Escar but adducing evidence based on common procedure.

A host of other defence counsel also joined Karpal in objecting to the tendering of the statement by Mohd Nizam as evidence.

Senior deputy public prosecutor Abdul Gani Patail said that according to legal authorities such evidence could be tendered.

"We just need to show that the witness had acted after receiving the call ... we will show through our witnesses what actions were taken," he said.

He added that Mohd Nizam was only giving this piece of evidence because he was the person who answered the radio call.

Zulkefli adjourned the matter over lunch to make a ruling.

When the hearing resumed in the afternoon, he overruled the objection raised by the defence on grounds that the evidence was "not hearsay" and is admissible for the prosecution to establish what was made and received by the witness.

"The fact that the contents had been made by the witness in my view is relevant to show the action taken by the witness and the result that follows," he said.

Military codes

In continuing his testimony, Mohd Nizam told the court that he suspected the caller had a link with the removal of the weapons from the store of Batalion 304 camp in Grik.

"From the manner he spoke, in which he used military codes, I was confident that the caller was either a present or former member of the military who has undergone the communications training. An army personnel who has not had the communications training will not know the code words," he said.

Mohd Nizam added that the radio frequency used by the caller in making the call also led him to believe that the caller had a link with the incident as all units in the country's military battalions have their own frequency.

"A military officer who has not gone through the communications training will not know the Batalion 304 frequency and its codes," Mohd Nizam said.

He added that one who had the communications radio set but did not know the particular frequency of a battalion would not be able to make the call.

"I was also aware at the time of the weapons heist that the book containing the camp's communications code was missing from Pos 2," he said.

In addition, Mohd Nizam testified that the camp's commanding officer Lt-Col M Yusof Abu Bakar tried to reach the caller through the same radio frequency at 11pm after the call was made, but was unsuccessful.

"He tried calling a few times for about 15 minutes. Then I waited by the radio until about 11.45pm but there was no sign of the call again," he said.

Mohd Nizam was giving evidence in the case where 29 members of the Al-Ma'unah group are accused under section 121 of the Penal Code for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, which carries the punishment of death or life sentence, or a fine, if found guilty of waging war or abetting to wage war in the country.

They are alleged to have committed the offence between June and July 6 at Pos 2, Km 19, Kuala Rui, Jalanraya Timur-Barat, Grik; Batalion 304, Infantri (AW), Kem Grik, Grik; and in Bukit Jenalik, Sauk, all in Perak ([#1]Twenty-nine Al-Ma'unah members claim trial[/#], Aug 9).

They are alleged to have stolen a cache of weapons and ammunition from two military camps by impersonating army officers in the early hours of July 2.

Appeal goes to Federal Court

Meanwhile, Karpal Singh, the defence counsel for Al Ma'unah leader Mohd Amin Mohamed Razali, has filed an application to the Federal Court for a stay of proceedings in the trial pending appeal.

Last Tuesday, Zulkefli ruled that the "emergency" regulation used in prosecuting the 29 Al-Ma'unah members for "treason" is valid ([#2]High Court rules Escar valid in Al-Ma'unah trial[/#], Oct 3).

He said that under the 1975 Essential Security Cases (Amendment) Regulations (Escar), defendants do have a right of appeal to the Federal Court as the Supreme Court is equivalent to the Federal Court.

Karpal had earlier submitted that Escar was invalid because, among others, it gives a right of appeal only to the Supreme Court, which does not exist now.

Meanwhile the hearing has been adjourned to Oct 23.