Application To Recuse Judge Rejected

Even though at one point I lose my interest to follow the development of the case of Anwar - Saiful, but I think it still necessary to get updated with its progress. Previously Anwar made an application to recuse High Court judge Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah from Anwar's ongoing sodomy trial.

The application is rejected, please read further.

Anwar fails to get judge recused

KUALA LUMPUR: Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim failed in his bid to get High Court judge Justice Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah disqualified from presiding over his second sodomy trial.

Justice Mohd Zabidin dismissed Anwar’s application after ruling that there was no real danger of bias.

In recalling the recorded conversation between Anwar and himself, the judge said that “a reasonable man who reads those words in its context would not have the impression that there was a real danger of bias”.

Defence counsel Karpal Singh then applied for a stay application pending Anwar’s appeal against the decision in the Court of Appeal.

The stay was granted and the court fixed Jan 21 for mention pending the appeal.

On Nov 23, Karpal had told the court that Justice Mohd Zabidin should be disqualified for dismissing Anwar’s application for access to Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors’ medical notes.

He had claimed that in dismissing Anwar’s application and in rejecting his appeal to reconsider, Justice Mohd Zabidin had misinterpreted a 1993 Supreme Court ruling that had set a precedence, and he had instructions from Anwar to file the recusal application.

Justice Mohd Zabidin had then told Karpal that he was responsible for his client and that he could be cited for contempt.

Karpal had retorted that this amounted to intimidation of counsel, which became the basis of the recusal application.

This was the second time Anwar had filed an application to recuse the trial judge.

The first was filed in March, with Anwar accusing the judge of bias for not initiating contempt action against Utusan Malaysia for being mischievous, and a disruption to a fair trial. That application was dismissed.
. . .

The Star Online

I won't comment further because I think this case always goes politically. So maybe we should wait the end result. I can't image how the report will look like. It must be a very long judgment and I don't think I ready to read it when it is prodeuced later in law journal.