English barrister Cherie Blair will know on Wednesday whether she will be able to represent construction company Fawziah Holdings at the Federal Court to defend its RM65 million judgment obtained against toll concessionaire Metramac Holdings Sdn Bhd.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim said she needed time to study the lengthy arguments forwarded by Blair's counsel Dr Cyrus Das and six parties opposing Blair's application.

The Attorney-General, the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (KLBC) had objected to her application, while those who expressed their disapproval were Metramac and interveners of the appeal - ex-finance minister Daim Zainuddin and high-profile businessman Abdul Halim Saad.

"I will only deliver a brief oral judgment on Wednesday. The full judgment will be available at a later date," said Justice Wan Afrah.

Blair - who is married to British Prime Minister Tony Blair - is known professionally as Cherie Booth.

She had applied under Section 18 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor to the High Court of Malaya on an ad-hoc basis to represent Fawziah Holdings in the Federal Court appeal on June 14.

On the same date, a five-member panel of the Federal Court is also set to hear Daim and Abdul Halim's applications to expunge all references made in relation to them in the written judgment of the Appeals Court in awarding the RM65 milllion to Fawziah Holdings.

Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram had in his judgment stated that Halim and his business partner Anuar Othman had siphoned RM32.5 million from Metramac, the owner and operator of the East-West Expressway and the Sungai Besi Expressway, and that they had enjoyed the patronage of Daim.

Feathers ruffled

During today's proceedings, counsel acting for the KLBC, GK Ganesan ruffled feathers when he departed from the argument used by five other lawyers in alleging that Blair would not be the right person to handle the appeal before the Federal Court.

Ganesan clarified that the KLBC's objection went only as far as Blair's qualifications on issues of commercial law and offered no view on her capabilities in dealing with judicial bias, which is the other aspect of the appeal.

"The position of the KLBC on the question of bias is far more difficult because of its possible impact on the judicial system," he said.

This is because the appeal seeks to question the conduct of the Court of Appeal in making observations against Daim and Halim who are third parties.

"If the observations are found to be true, what would be the fate of the third parties? But if the observations are found to have had no basis, what would be the fate of three court of appeal judges? The consequences are tremendous," Ganesan said.

He also pointed out the 'unfortunate position' of Fawziah Holdings as it not only has to defend the judgment, but also the conduct of the Court of Appeal judges and it may be too much for its lead counsel Dr Cyrus Das to do both.

"Maybe that is why the respondent (Fawziah Holdings) seeks to bring in an independent counsel to argue the bias question from a detached viewpoint without having to deal with the other aspect of the appeal."

He also said that there may be merit to the argument that Blair's experience as a recorder (temporary judge) in the County Court and Crown Court is relevant to her handling the judicial bias issue.

"One is compelled to ask if there is a member of the Malaysian Bar who is both a practising lawyer as well a judicial officer like Cherie Booth QC ( as a recorder) and who would - if he exists - be, as a practising judicial officer, in a better position to understand and argue the bias question from a detached point of view without being concerned with the factual issues of the case."

He urged the court to carefully consider the far-reaching consequences the appeal brings, before deciding whether or not to allow Blair's application.

Tommy Thomas - who represents Abdul Halim - at this stage sought an explanation on the "qualified objection" raised by Ganesan, who he claimed had departed from his written submissions which objected to the application in toto.

Ganesan denied his objection was a qualified one, stating that KLBC was merely stating facts needed by the court in making its decision.

When Thomas pressed his arguments, Cyrus stood up to say that it was odd for adversaries and opponents to the application to question the stand taken by the KL Bar.

"I don't think that the KL Bar is obliged to answer him. If he's not happy with the submission, then he's not happy about it. That's all there is to it," said Cyrus.

Slander-value in argument?

Justice Afrah noted that there was a slight departure in Ganesan's submission, compared to the written argument he had filed earlier.

Ganesan denied this and said that KLBC was actually objecting to Blair's application. But he also said he could not make any adverse remarks on the issue of judicial bias as it would be of 'slander value'.

By this time, Metramac lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah entered the fray over repeated protests from Cyrus.

"After reading his (Ganesan's) written submission and comparing with what he has said, it seems that he had jumped on the fence. Hopefully he doesn't jump to the other side," exclaimed Shafee.

He said Ganesan seemed to think that Blair would be handling the case independently which he said was impossible.

"He seems concerned with the independence of Cherie Booth in a manner as if she is going to sit on the panel (as a judge). The fact is, once she is engaged, she can no longer be independent. Just like I cannot be independent in representing Metramac."

Shafee ( pix ) reiterated his arguments that Blair's credentials do not prove that she is an expert to deal with the issue of judicial bias.

In his reply, Cyrus questioned the 'vehement protest' by his opponents in the appeal against Blair's application.

"One can only put it down to that, as the opponents, they need to act in a partisan manner and for their own self-interest."

He said the court could not place much value on such partisan arguments, adding that his opponents had no right to tell his client who can or cannot represent them.

"Although I am grateful for all the nice things they have said about me, the irony is that they are making a choice of reference which is not theirs to make."

He said Blair's expertise in public law would mean that she is competent to deal with judicial bias, which is an integral part of that branch.

He added that the fact that Blair was invited to speak on 'The Role of Judges in a Human Rights World' at the prestigious Sultan Azlan Shah lecture showed that her authority on the issue is recognised locally.