Zaini is also the judge in her ongoing corruption trial linked to the RM1.25 billion Sarawak rural schools’ solar hybrid energy project.
He said a judge is required to consider separately and independently the evidence against the accused.
“Any findings I make in the solar case remain there,” he said, adding that a recent Federal Court ruling held that a judge, unlike jurors, is trained in law to remain impartial despite reading the facts relating to a case.
The corruption case will resume on Dec 23, and the money laundering and tax evasion trial will begin on Jan 12.
Rosmah, who made the application on Nov 2, applied for an order that the money laundering case be heard before another High Court judge.
On Feb 18, Zaini had ruled that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against Rosmah and ordered her to enter her defence in the corruption case.
Rosmah claimed that statements and exhibits tendered before the court in the corruption case could directly or indirectly influence Zaini if he also presided over the money laundering case.
The former prime minister’s wife is facing 12 money laundering charges involving RM7,097,750 and five counts of failure to declare her income to the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN).
In his oral judgment today, Zaini said Rosmah’s primary concern was about her statement given to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) during the investigation.
He said he was of the view that Rosmah’s fear that he may be greatly prejudiced as “I may possibly make a comparison between the statement and her defence (in the corruption case)” was unfounded.
When allowing the prosecution’s application to admit a statement for the purposes of impeaching the accused in the corruption case, he said, he had ruled that no questions were to be asked pertaining to the facts of the money laundering case.
“In gist, I took great care to ensure that the accused would not be prejudiced in the money laundering case when references are made to the statement in the corruption case,” he said.
Zaini said it was the solemn duty of any judge to ensure that an accused was tried fairly as enshrined under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
“In any event, the learned counsel for the respondent (Gopal Sri Ram), during the course of the submissions, convinced me that the issues that the prosecution intends to adduce in relation to the statement in the corruption case has no bearing on the issues in this (money laundering) case,” he said.
Lawyer Geethan Ram Vincent,representing Rosmah, said he would seek instructions on whether to file an appeal.
We are live on Telegram, subscribe here for breaking news and the latest announcements.