Anwar wants to disqualify judge from hearing

0

KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday sought to disqualify High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah from continuing to hear his sodomy trial.

This is the second time Anwar had applied to recuse the judge.

His first application had been rejected by Justice Mohamad Zabidin, as well as by the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh informed the court that his client had instructed him to make the application to recuse the judge.

Karpal said he made the application on the ground that the judge had interpreted differently the provision of Section 45 of the Evidence Act in his ruling yesterday.

The lawyer said he would file the formal application tomorrow. The court set tomorrow to hear the matter.

Karpal said Justice Mohamad Zabidin in dismissing Anwar’s bid to get clininal notes on Mohd Saiful prepared by three Hospital Kuala Lumpur specialists, had not considered his submission over the Supreme Court ruling in relation to Section 45.

He said the High Court was bound by the Supreme Court ruling that in civil and criminal cases, the evidence of an expert on handwriting unsupported by cogent data showing the process by which he came to his conclusion is not worth the paper, under Section 45.

At today’s proceedings, Karpal also made the application to commit HKL forensic pathologist Dr Siew Sheue Feng for an offence under the Penal Code for contempt of court.

Dr Siew is the third prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Anwar, who is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful, 25, at Unit 11-5-1 of Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

This arose after Dr Siew, under cross-examination by Karpal, said in his evidence that he had looked at the protocol form that he filled in, on Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s medical history .

Following this, Karpal applied for contempt of court against Dr Siew, as before this he (Dr Siew) stood to his principle not to refer to the protocol form, even though Karpal had several times asked him to refer to the report.

Karpal argued that based on the Federal Court ruling under Section 159 of the Evidence Act, a witness who was still under cross-examination cannot refer to any notes to refresh his memory during the court break.

He said the witness was only entitled to do so in the witness box when he was being cross-examined.

Referring to another ruling by the Federal Court, Solicitor-General 11 Datuk Mohamed Yusof Zainal Abiden, who is leading the prosecution team, replied that under that section, the witness who was still under cross-examination can refer to his notes during the proceedings or during a court break. Justice Mohamad Zabidin will decide tomorrow on the matter.

At the outset, the atmosphere in court was tensed following exchange of words between Karpal and Mohamed Yusof after Karpal requested Dr Siew to have a look at his protocol report when he could not remember certain particulars in it.

Karpal: Can you remember the name of the patient that you wrote in the protocol form? Dr Siew: Yes, the name is Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Karpal: His identity card number? Dr Siew: I can’t remember.

Karpal: Do you want to refer to your protocol form? Dr Siew: I want to have a look at my full medical report. It was a complete report.

Karpal: Do you remember Mohd Saiful’s date of birth? Dr Siew: I can’t remember.

Karpal: That is why you have to refer to your protocol form to refresh your memory.

Dr Siew: I want to refer to my full medical report.

At this juncture Mohamed Yusof objected to Karpal’s line of questioning and asked Karpal to stop his request for Dr Siew to refer to the protocol form.

Karpal interjected that Dr Siew had been programmed like a robot, to which the court saw exchange of words between Karpal and Mohamed Yusof, forcing the judge to stand down the proceeding for a while.

The matter did not end there as after the judge left the court room, Anwar said to Mohamed Yusof that the prosecution was suppressing evidence and Mohamed Yusof replied that Anwar did not know the law.

Several people in the public gallery were also seen shouting at Mohamed Yusof wheh he was arguing with Anwar’s co-counsel S N Nair.

Following that, the police officers in the court and court officers advised people in the public gallery to leave, saying they have to respect the court. — Bernama