The High Court has yet to hear submissions from the prosecution and the defence on the question of relevance of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's testimony in sacked deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial.

This morning, the prosecution continued their cross examination of defence witness DSP Zull Aznam Harun, who was Anwar's former police escort. However, it is expected that submissions on the question of relevance of Mahathir's testimony will be heard by the court this afternoon.

Asked whether there would be a decision by the judge on the matter today, lead defence counsel Christopher Fernando said, "I doubt very much. It will probably take a day or two."

He added that he would appeal to the higher court should the decision be not in the defence's favour.

"If the judge rejects the subpoena, we can appeal against the decision right away," he said.

The prospect of seeing Mahathir meeting Anwar for the first time since the sacking of the former prime-minister-in-waiting has drawn a lot of public interest, resulting in a long queue outside the courthouse this morning.

Anwar and his adopted brother Sukma Dermawan Sasmitaat Madja are charged with sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar "on one night between January and March 1993 at 7.45pm". Sukma is also charged with abetting and aiding Anwar to sodomise the ex-driver.

Meanwhile, defence counsel for Sukma, Gobind Singh, told the court he would examine whether Mahathir's statement on his need to appear in court made today (at another place, not at the court) was contemptuous.

"I understand the Prime Minister made a statement this morning saying he need not appear in court. Even before your lordship has decided, he had already made up his mind," said Gobind.

Arifin responded, "It is a question of law. The court has the power. I will decide."

Gobind said, "I want to look at the statement to see if it was contemptous, and if necessary take it up in court."

According to Bernama, Mahathir told reporters this morning that he would present himself at the sodomy trial if the court rules that it is relevant for him to testify.

"If it's relevant of course I will have to go. That is the law. There is nothing I can do about it," he said.

But he expressed hope that his testimony would be relevant to the case.

"If it is not relevant to the case and they just want to make a political show of it, I don't think it is being very fair," he added.