.png)
THE Federal Court has dismissed Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s final appeal to remove Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, now a Court of Appeal judge, who convicted her in the RM1.25 billion corruption case involving a hybrid solar energy project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak.
A three-member Federal Court panel chaired by Datuk Nordin Hassan unanimously rejected the appeal, ruling that there were no errors of law or fact sufficiently serious to warrant intervention. The bench also comprised Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Azimah Omar.
Delivering the judgment, Nordin said Rosmah, 74, had failed to establish the existence of a real danger of bias on the part of Mohamed Zaini when he convicted the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Therefore, this appeal is dismissed,” he said.
The court further found that Mohamed Zaini had not breached the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 despite allegations that a leaked draft judgment had been prepared by the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s research unit prior to the delivery of his decision on 1 September 2022.
Nordin said the panel had carefully considered the submissions presented, particularly the seven grounds advanced to support the contention of a real danger of bias, and concluded that Rosmah had failed to substantiate them.
He added that the trial judge’s refusal to adjourn the recusal application could not form the basis of Rosmah’s complaint.
“The applicant (Rosmah) was heard for approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes in the recusal application, and we find that the decision not to grant an adjournment was appropriate in the circumstances and did not violate the principles of natural justice or the applicant’s constitutional rights.
“Likewise, we find that there was no procedural non-compliance in this case. It is a well-established principle that an appellate court may reassess a case based on the entirety of the evidence even if the trial judge did not expressly mention the relevant legal principle, in this case, the principle of real danger of bias.
“We are of the view that the trial judge in this case did not breach the Judges’ Code of Ethics, and therefore, we do not find any appealable error warranting this court’s intervention. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed,” he said.
Nordin said the central issue was whether there was a real danger of bias based on the facts alleged by the applicant, namely that the trial judge had relied on a draft judgment or opinion prepared by a third party.
He noted that this allegation had to be proven by the applicant and determined by the trial judge based on his own knowledge of the case.
“This was not an ordinary burden of proof between two parties, and the trial judge was in a position to refute the factual allegation based on his personal knowledge.
“The trial judge, in his grounds of judgment for the recusal application, stated that he did not rely on any draft opinion or draft judgment prepared by the research unit, but instead prepared his grounds of judgment based on his own research and the parties’ submissions in this case.
“The Court of Appeal, after examining the draft opinion or draft judgment of the research unit and the trial judge’s grounds of judgment, also found differences between the two and concluded that the trial judge had independently prepared his grounds of judgment,” he said.
Rosmah had filed the recusal application on 26 August 2022, days before the solar case verdict was due to be delivered, citing concerns over judicial integrity following the alleged leak of a draft judgment published by a news portal.
She also sought an order to stay the High Court’s final decision pending the outcome of her application and investigations into related complaints and police reports, and requested that the case be reheard before a different judge.
On 1 September 2022, Mohamed Zaini found Rosmah guilty on three corruption charges linked to the hybrid solar project and sentenced her to 10 years’ imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. The court also imposed a fine of RM970 million, with a further 30 years’ imprisonment in default of payment. - March 3, 2026