Prosecution accused of linking Guan Eng to robbery at witness’ house.
Lim’s counsel, Ramkarpal Singh, told Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi that Wan Shaharuddin’s comments, as reported in Malaysiakini and the New Straits Times on 6 August, gave the impression that the robbery was connected to the trial.
“The implication is very serious for our client, as it can give rise to questions such as whether Lim engaged in witness tampering. That affects the integrity and neutrality of the prosecution,” Ramkarpal said.
He stressed that police had twice stated the attack on businessman G Gnanaraja was unrelated to the undersea tunnel graft trial. “It is an isolated incident, totally unconnected with this case. How can Lim have a fair trial if the DPP has already concluded otherwise with a reckless statement?” he added.
Wan Shaharuddin, in response, said his remarks were taken out of context and that he had simply been answering questions from reporters. “I am not stupid to say the robbery is related to Guan Eng. Siapa makan cili terasa pedasnya (if the shoe fits, wear it). Let the police investigate first,” he said, noting that his comments were made before police officially classified the case as robbery later that day.
He added that if the defence wished to seek his recusal, they should file a formal application.
Judge Azura said it would not be fair for her to make any ruling based on media reports not formally before the court. “If you are serious about the application, then file it with evidence so that I can consider,” she told the defence.
After a short adjournment, Ramkarpal informed the court that the defence would not be filing an application to recuse Wan Shaharuddin at this stage, but reserved the right to do so if similar conduct was repeated.