The Kuala Lumpur High Court has given Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's press aide Tengku Sharifuddin Tengku Ahmad 30 days to provide further particulars in his defence to the suit filed by former Kedah menteri besar Mukhriz Mahathir.

Failing to provide the details in the form of an affidavit by May 4 would result in the particular defence cited being struck out.

Judicial commissioner Roslan A Bakar in his oral decision today said there were merits to Mukhriz's interrogatories application.

Among the particulars that the aide is suppose to reveal in the affidavit are whether Najib had directed the drafting of the press statements on Mukhriz, and whether the prime minister approved the statements before it is issued.

Besides this, Tengku Sharifuddin is also to reveal who and how many members in the research team had helped draft the statement.

Mukhriz's lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla told reporters that based on the press aide's response next month, his team might decide to name Najib in the suit.

“However, this is not confirmed yet,” he added.

Roslan heard submissions to Mukhriz's application last month where Tengku Sharifuddin's lawyer Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos told the court that the application to check and verify the facts was not a requirement in the suit and it was done with the intention to delay the trial.

Mukhriz filed the suit against Tengku Sharifuddin following press statements issued between April 15 and 26. He held that the statements alleged he was conspiring with his father, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, to topple a lawful government.

Mukhriz alleged that the statements suggested that he would be given the prime minister's post once Muhyiddin steps down after replacing Najib as prime minister.

The former menteri besar alleged that Tengku Sariffuddin painted a picture that Mukhriz was “crazy for power: and would do anything to achieve his ambition to become prime minister, including cheating, which is against the democratic process.

Tengku Shariffuddin, in his striking out application and defence, claimed there was no reasonable cause of action and the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.