Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 21 (Bernama) -- Wee Choo Keong, the counsel representing V.K. Thirunama, was warned by the Royal Commission of Inquiry today to be careful in making statements to the media.

At the onset of the proceedings today, Commission Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor criticised Wee who was said to have told the media that "the Commission was reluctant to call his (Wee's) client" to give evidence in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the controversial video clip showing lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam allegedly brokering the appointment of judges.

Wee's statement was published in an article by a local English daily on Saturday.

Wee replied: "There were so many people outside the court and there was a commotion there, I can't remember making the statement as there were so many people out there".

Haidar then said he was not making a big issue out of it but added that Wee should take note of that matter.

"We advise you to be careful on what you're saying. We hope you have some respect for us and not simply make insinuations. Don't force us to take action," he said.

Haidar said what was reported in the newspaper did not give a good reflection on the Commission.

Wee then said there were also media reports saying that the Commission was quiet apprehensive.

Haidar interjected questioning Wee on whether he had any evidence on that and requested him (Wee) to give proof to the Commission.

Haidar said he hoped everybody would give their co-operation as the Commission had given a lot of leeway.

"Please do not take the Commission for granted," Haidar said.

Meanwhile, the Commission ordered all parties in the inquiry to submit on the relevancy of evidence relating to Lingam's trip with former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin to New Zealand.

The order came about after Lingam's counsel R.Thayalan said the evidence was not within the scope of the Commission's terms of reference and was not relevant for the Commission to determine.

Thayalan objected to the admissibility of that evidence after it was raised by the Malaysian Bar representative Robert Lazar.

Thayalan said that evidence could not be linked to the appointment of judges as the trip was in 1994 while the conversation in the video clip took place in 2001.

"The evidence of this is irrelevant, the Commission should exclude this matter and pray that the evidence be expunged from the proceedings.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed