Anwar Fails To Recuse Trial Judge

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Thursday failed in his bid to recuse High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah from hearing the sodomy trial involving the opposition leader.

Justice Mohamad Zabidin, in dismissing the application, ruled that there was no reason for him to recuse himself from continuing to preside over the case and that if he were to do that, it would be tantamount to running away from his responsibility.

"A judge is bound by his oath and should not run away from the responsibility entrusted to him. The application is hereby dismissed," he said.

Anwar filed the application on Wednesday on ground of bias after Mohamad Zabidin refused to entertain requests by Anwar's lead counsel Karpal Singh to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt.

Anwar, 63, who is the Parti Keadilan Rakyat advisor and member of parliament for Permatang Pauh, is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his former aide, at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

The charge under section 377B of the Penal Code carries a maximum 20 years' jail and whipping upon conviction.

In his judgment, Mohamad Zabidin said that to recuse a judge from continuing to preside over a case on ground of bias, the applicant must show that there was indeed an element of bias in the trial.

He added that in determining whether bias was present, the court would have to look at the perception of others towards the case.

"If sound-minded people perceive that there is a real possibility that the judge is bias, then he should not preside over the case," he said.

Citing a previous case as an example, Mohamad Zabidin said facts should first be presented in court in order to prove that people were of the opinion that the judge was bias before the said judge could recuse himself.

He added that in Anwar's sodomy trial, the main issue to be determined was whether there was an offence committed under Section 377B of the Penal Code.

"The issue is whether there are facts in the case which will cause people to think that there is a real possibility that a decision pertaining to whether there was sodomy between the applicant and complainant, is made not based on evidence adduced in court but based on other factors," he said.