Ahmad Fairuz JCA:

On 30 August 1999, the learned High Court judge dismissed the appellant's oral application to disqualify himself from hearing and determining the suit No. S2-23-42-96 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit"). The appellant now appeals against that decision.

The respondents filed the suit against the appellant for damages premised upon slander and libel arising from an article entitled "Malaysian Justice on Trial"published in the November issue of the International Commercial Litigation magazine. The suit had undergone various stages of case management by the learned judge. On 13 August 1999, the suit was at its last stage of case management and was fixed for hearing on 1 September 1999 and 6 September 1999 to 10 September 1999. It was at this stage that the appellant orally applied for the trial judge to recuse himself from hearing and determining the suit.

Pertaining to the abovementioned article, there were also filed five other defamation suits (hereinafter referred to as "the five suits"). The parties to the five suits reached an amicable settlement and on 21 October 1998 a statement in open court was read out, after which the learned judge, inter alia, said:

I do not intend to narrate the facts of this case. In the normal circumstances, when a case fixed for hearing is settled the Judge makes no comments save to record the settlement and to thank counsel. But I cannot let this case pass me by with a mere recording of the terms of settlement.

It is pertinent for me to express my views upon matters leading to this case.

It is now clear that the open Court statement by the defendants puts paid to any suggestion that it is open to a litigant or his counsel to buy justice in this country.

The unfounded and contumelious allegations made without any basis that justice is for purchase compels me to say a few words notwithstanding the magnanimous gestures of repentance by the defendants.

Falsehood if continuously repeated takes on the mantle of truth. Allegations of improper conduct by the plaintiffs and their counsel in complicity with judges were the basis for these suits to have been commenced.

The unreserved apology tendered herein completely vindicates the plaintiffs and their counsel and needless to say reinforces the belief that the scales of justice in this country are ever evenly balanced.

It is my fervent hope that with the closure of all these cases and the amicable settlement arrived at by all parties, everyone will see the futility of 'shooting from the hip'.

Subsequent to the settlement proceeding, one of the defendants in the five suits, Tommy Thomas, issued a press statement to the effect that the settlement "was initiated, brokered and insisted upon by the insurers". Mr. Tommy Thomas also said in the press statement that the five suits were settled despite his express objections. Mr. Tommy Thomas, however, retracted this press statement later. All these prompted the trial judge to issue, on his own motion, a notice to show cause as to why Mr. Tommy Thomas should not be cited for contempt of court. This contempt proceeding resulted in a finding of guilt and a sentence of six months' imprisonment being imposed on Mr. Tommy Thomas. In his written judgment the trial judge, inter alia, said:

All these actions arise out of an article published in a specialist legal journal called 'International Commercial Litigation' The said publication is available in many countries including Malaysia. The impugned article was a cover story entitled 'Malaysian Justice on Trial'. The article considered in damaging terms various decisions of the Malaysian Courts in respect of

certain named cases.

The gravamen of the complaint about the article in the suits by the plaintiffs was that the said article accused the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs in the named suits of complicity in, or at least connivance at improperly seeking to obtain favours from the Judges concerned in the litigation in which they were involv