in this case shares many similarities with the motion filed by the defendant in Antoine. Notably, defendant did not cite section 114 — 5(d) in his motion, he failed to meet the statute’s affidavit requirement, and he never asked the trial court to transfer the motion to another judge for ruling. Thus, we conclude that defendant’s “Motion of Recusal” did not trigger a duty requiring the trial court to transfer the cause to a different judge for ruling. Defendant urges us to liberally construe section 114 — 5(d) and ignore the affidavit requirement. While we agree the statute is to be liberally construed, it should not be interpreted so as to contravene its express provisions. People v. Van Pelt, 18 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1089 (1974); see also People v. Clay, 124 Ill. App. 3d 140, 147 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Even in the absence of an affidavit, a
holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion holding that burden is on trial court denying a facially sufficient rule 3800a motion to attach record establishing movant is not entitled to relief holding motion for substitution of judge properly denied where movant failed to attach affidavit holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity