Arguably, the Wikileaks summary goes too far in claiming that the order "forbids any discloures (sic), by publication or otherwise, of any information relating

Arguably, the Wikileaks summary goes too far in claiming that the order "forbids any discloures (sic), by publication or otherwise, of any information relating to the court case by anyone." The order is limited to disclosure that "reveals, implies, suggests or alleges" that various specified politicians received, attempted to receive, or were intended to receive a bribe. It is not really clear that the orders themselves (sans the Bird affidavit) "suggest" that bribes were attempted or intended. It's also unclear whether the explicit inclusion of "the terms of these orders" is supposed to resolve this question or merely state that disclosure of the orders themselves could be an offence. Perhaps this explains why the affidavit itself wasn't leaked.