Nazlan Ghazali’s conflict of interest

Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When Anwar Ibrahim was convicted more than 20 years ago, our argument (and the reason why we came to his defence) was that the judge said Anwar was not able to prove his innocence and hence the court finds him guilty.

Any first year law student knows that it is the prosecution’s job to prove guilt and not the defence’s job to prove innocence.

In Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali’s case, the judge in the SCR case, he is without a doubt in conflict of interest. Hence he is not qualified to be the judge in Najib Tun Razak’s trial.

Maybe those of you who never went to law school do not comprehend the laws or rules regarding conflict of interest. So allow me to enlighten you on the matter.

(Later I will reveal the emails that prove Mohd Nazlan was involved in the affairs of 1MDB).

Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate

Any justice, judge, or magistrate must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The justice, judge, or magistrate must also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.