Prosecution objects to Rosmah’s bid to recuse judge in solar case

Prosecution objects to Rosmah’s bid to recuse judge in solar case

KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution today objected to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s application to recuse Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan from hearing her corruption case involving the RM1.25 billion hybrid solar project.

Rosmah, 70, filed the last-minute application on the grounds of a purported leaked judgment of her case which was prepared by another party that was viralled by the mass and electronic media last Aug 26.

Lead prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said the purported leaked ‘judgment’ referred to by the applicant (Rosmah) was not a written judgment at all.

“It was clear from the document itself that it was a research and opinion write-up prepared by the Research Unit of the Kuala Lumpur High Court,” he said.

Sri Ram argued that the application was based entirely on hearsay evidence and bad faith and the applicant had not produced any credible and cogent evidence to support her accusation of bias and judicial impropriety against Judge Mohamed Zaini.

“We are ready to argue and we oppose any application for adjournment and delivery of judgment. If they are not ready, we ask for it (application) to be dismissed,” he told the court.

He was responding to Rosmah’s counsel Datuk Jagjit Singh’s application to adjourn the hearing of the application as they needed more time to gather facts.

The lawyer raised the matter when the proceedings began at 9.28 am.

Jagjit also said the defence needed time to reply on an affidavit affirmed by deputy public prosecutor Poh Yih Tinn in objecting to Rosmah’s application.

Judge Mohamed Zaini said the fact that the defence had filed a certificate of urgency would usually mean the matter should be heard the soonest.

“If not the same day, it should be heard the next day. When you filed the certificate of urgency on the eve of Merdeka Day, I had instructed my officers to prepare the hearing today,” he said.

Judge Mohamed Zaini asked the defence whose idea it was to file the application, to which Jagjit replied, “We act on instruction.”

“You want (hearing of) the application to be adjourned to another day? This application will become academic after I have delivered my decision,” the judge said.

He also noted that the allegations in the recusal application pertain to an alleged judgment written by a third party on his behalf.

However, he said he would be the only one to answer the matter and asked the defence to argue on the application and stood down the proceedings.

“I will wait for you. Let me know when you are ready,” he said.

The judge is scheduled to deliver the verdict on the case today. – Bernama