©The
Star (Used by permission)
KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Datuk V.K. Lingam video
clip will not be “that open anymore” to prevent baseless and wild allegations
from making way into the news.
“It’s not going to be that open anymore, like previously. It’s not nice for the
news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is
relevant to the terms of reference of the inquiry,” commission secretary Datuk
Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid said.
“The commission must determine first the questions to be asked so that unrelated
matters are not brought up.”
The commission wanted to make sure that allegations that had nothing to do with
the video clip would not be included as evidence, he said after the panel heard
submissions behind closed–door proceedings yesterday.
Earlier, the Royal Commission heard in camera arguments on whether Lingam’s
brother and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should be called to testify on the alleged
closeness between the lawyer and judges.
The commission stopped the press and public from attending the morning and
afternoon sessions yesterday as lawyers for the two proposed witnesses had
indicated they would be touching on certain personalities in the course of their
submissions.
The closed–door proceedings started at 10am and were stood down at 12.15pm
before resuming at 2.45pm.
Only lawyers holding a watching brief were allowed to participate in the
proceedings. Pressmen and the public were left to guess when the proceedings
would be opened again.
However, at about 4.30pm, they were allowed in to hear the testimony of an
expert, Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, who had examined the clip and concluded that it
was Lingam’s voice in the clip.
By then, many members of the public who had stood waiting outside were
complaining about the transparency of the proceedings.
The panel reserved its judgment till Monday on whether to call the proposed
witnesses.
Early this week, the statements by the proposed witnesses – Lingam’s brother
Thirunama Karasu and Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Anwar – were handed in to the
commission.
Lawyers Wee Choo Keong, who is appearing for Thirunama, and M. Puravalen, who is
acting for the other two proposed witnesses, had told the court that the
proposed evidence was relevant to the inquiry.
On Thursday, the panel ordered that the matter be heard yesterday in camera and
that proceedings would be reopened to the public after it had decided which part
of the statements could be allowed and whether the witnesses should be called to
give evidence.
Business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan was seen outside the inquiry courtroom at
about 10.30am yesterday but he left at lunchtime without getting to testify.
Former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, who was initially
scheduled to take the stand in the afternoon, also did not get to testify. He
was not seen at the inquiry yesterday.
The former top judge is allegedly the person Lingam was speaking to on the
telephone in the video clip, which was filmed in Lingam’s house in Kelana Jaya
on Dec 20, 2001.
Lingam wants his own experts
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam wants the Royal Commission to call two of his experts to testify on the proper tools and methods used to authenticate video clips.
His counsel R. Thayalan made an oral application for this yesterday halfway through his examination of witness Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, a senior analyst from CyberSecurity Malaysia who was recalled to the stand.
The lawyer said the experts – one for video and another for audio analysis – were prepared to give evidence as early as next week.
In his testimony on Thursday, Lingam stuck to his stand that the original video clip had to be tendered to the commission for his experts from the United States and Britain to authenticate it.
He also said his experts found Zabri’s report “fundamentally flawed and defective.”
When commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor pointed out to Thayalan yesterday that experts might not be necessary since the commission had already heard from two direct witnesses and a local expert, the lawyer stuck to his client’s stand that the original clip had to be authenticated.
“Our experts say that the video identification can only be made from the original source,” he said.
Earlier yesterday, Zabri disagreed with Thayalan’s suggestion that the video clip had been tampered with based on the two versions – one lasting 8mins 26secs and another lasting 14mins 15secs – given to him for analysis.
The analyst said the shorter clip was a “snipped” or shortened version of the longer clip.
However, he admitted that he could not determine whether there was any other recording beyond the 14 minutes and 15 seconds of the longer clip.
Zabri also disagreed with Thayalan’s contention that the tools he had used to analyse the voice from the video clip were not “geared for voice analysis.”
While he agreed that he was not trained in linguistics and phonetics, the witness said these were covered in the audio forensics tools he used to analyse the voice samples.
“It is an automated system that calculates all the unique characteristics in the voice.
“Therefore, all the results will be calculated automatically. But in order to get very good impartial result, the recording must be done according to forensic sound methodology,” he said.
Asked if he had to have the original video clip to determine that it was not tampered with, Zabri replied that the copy given to him was sufficient.
When Thayalan brought the commission’s attention to his application again just before the proceedings ended yesterday, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar asked him on the role of his experts in the inquiry.
Mahadev: If I understand you correctly, your witnesses will not be saying Zabri’s findings are wrong but that if he had used more sophisticated tools, he would get 100% result?
Thayalan: That’s on the audio analysis, not on the video authenticity.
Mahadev: I am going back to the “it may be me, it may not be me.” Let me repeat myself. Your witnesses will not be saying Zabri’s findings are wrong but that if he had used more sophisticated tools, he would get conclusive results?
Thayalan: I will have to tender the report by our experts before I make my position.
Mahadev: Nowhere in your cross–examination of this witness did you suggest that his conclusion is wrong?
Thayalan: No.
The lawyer had earlier submitted the curriculum vitae of the two experts to the commission for them to consider his application.
He also told the panel that he would also get them to prepare a report of their findings to be submitted to the commission for their consideration.
Haidar said the commission would give their decision when the proceedings resume next week.
Regulars caught by surprise
KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Commission of Inquiry decided to hold a closed–door
session yesterday morning, catching regulars, who started arriving from 6.30am,
unawares.
The afternoon session would only start at 2.30pm, according to the notices, but
the early birds were determined to wait outside the courtroom on Level Three of
the Jalan Duta court complex.
The commission had stated on Thursday that part of the Inquiry would be held
behind closed doors to hear submissions from certain lawyers, but it did not say
when.
“The officials should have told us earlier, then we wouldn't have come so early
to stand in queue,” one of the early birds was heard grumbling.
Officials said they were given instructions at the end of the proceedings on
Thursday and did not have time to inform the press and public. It was 4.30pm
before pressmen and the public were allowed in.