Liong Sik's bid to recuse trial judge dismissed

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today dismissed Ling Liong Sik’s application to recuse the trial judge in the Port Klang Free Zone cheating case.

Justice Ahmadi Asnawi in his decision said the applicant (Ling) had failed to show that there was bias in his written judgment.

“I have scrutinised the submission from both parties and felt the comments made cannot be seen as an exaggeration as it was based on finding of facts and on testimony during the examination-in-chief and during cross-examination,” he said.

“The comments do not affect the running of a fair trial of this case. It does not mean the defence cannot rebut its case. The application has no merit and the case is dismissed,” he said.

He then ordered the trial to resume on July 13.

Earlier, lawyers for the former transport minister has submitted there was apparent bias with regard to the presiding judge in ordering Ling (right) to enter his defence as the former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad had not been called.

In also complaining about the “strong language” used in the 83-page judgment, Wong Kian Kheong, appearing for Ling, said the suggestion of apparent bias was made with the judge’s comments in the judgment.

Wong said the comments made were as if there was absolute finality and there is no ambiguity in the judge arriving at his decision.

He also said Mahathir should have been called by the prosecution to prepare its case.

“There is no evidence that Mahathir was deceived by my client (which is an integral evidence in the trial) and yet your lordship (the judge) had concluded that my client had deceived Mahathir.

“In other words, there was no evidence before the court from Mahathir who was alleged to have been deceived by Ling, to testify that he was deceived,” said Wong.

‘Real danger of bias’

Wong said there was a real danger of bias as the test, at that stage was prima facie, but the language used was strong as if it had already decided.

“There is a reasonable apprehension of bias that my lord has already pre-decided my client’s guilt before the defence evidence was adduced,” he said.

He said his client should be accorded a fair trial as justice must be done but must seen to be done.

Wong said he was not questioning Justice Ahmadi’s integrity but was concerned over the perception might be given of a real danger of bias to the public at large.

DPP Manoj Kurup, in praying for the application to be dismissed, submitted that nothing in the paragraphs cited by Wong can be described as a real danger of bias.

He said furthermore the judge, in determining to call Ling’s defence, had made a thorough examination of the witnesses including evidence elicited during cross-examination.

Manoj said there was no requirement for the judge to prepare such detailed grounds but he did provide an 83-page judgment dealing with every points raised in the charge.

He submitted that the applicants fall short in trying to establish its case for the judge’s recusal.