|
©Bernama
(Used by permission)
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 29 (Bernama) -- Former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh
Abdul Halim said he did not summon lawyer Datuk V.K.Lingam to show cause on why
he should not be cited for contempt for allegedly making untrue remarks and
scandalising the judiciary.
Ahmad Fairuz, however, concurred with the Malaysian Bar's lawyer Yeo Yang Poh
that there could be a prima facie cause for contempt of court on Lingam as he
had put the judiciary's reputation in very bad light.
Lingam was featured in a video clip allegedly brokering judicial appointments.
However, Ahmad Fairuz, who retired in Nov 1 last year, said it was difficult for
him to summon Lingam since the subject matter was under investigations by the
Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).
"At that time, I didn't know the outcome of the investigations and the contents
of the video clip was not proven whether it was authentic or fabricated. Also, I
could not confirm positively who was the speaker in the video clip," said Ahmad
Fairuz, 66, who was continuing his testimony in the royal commission of inquiry
into the Lingam video clip from Monday.
The five-member inquiry, headed by retired Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar
Mohamed Noor, into the controversial video clip entered the 11th day today,
among others, to determine the authenticity of the clip.
Ahmad Fairuz was referred to a portion of the transcript of the video clip where
the speaker told the person sitting on a sofa that he (the speaker) was speaking
to him (Ahmad Fairuz), who was then the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM), on the
telephone.
Asked by Yeo on whether he was upset when he heard the remarks in the video
clip, which was shown to him yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz, the 14th witness, said: "
Off course, I am".
Referring to another portion in the transcript..."You suffered so much, so much
you have done. you know, for the election petition, Wee Choo Keong, everything.
How much, nobody would have done all these.
Yeo asked Ahmad Fairuz whether the remarks showed the speaker in the video clip
was speaking to you, Ahmad Fairuz said: "The inference is there".
Yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz said he was the election court judge presiding the
election petition for the Bukit Bintang parliamentary seat involving lawyer Wee
Choo Keong.
Ahmad Fairuz also denied allegations in the video clip that there were different
camps in the judiciary.
To a question by counsel Khoo Guan Huat representing former Chief Justice Tun
Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah on whether he (Ahmad Fairuz) might have told Dzaiddin
on the eve of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's birthday in 2002 that Tourism Minister
Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor had recommended that he (Ahmad Fairuz) be
conferred the "Tan Sri" title.
Ahmad Fairuz said: "I don't remember. I only remember informing Dzaiddin that I
have been conferred the "Tan Sriship".
Ahmad Fairuz also testified that he did not respond publicly to the allegations
after the release of the video clip as he did not want to jeopardise ACA
investigations.
"I did not take steps to reply to the allegations in public as the matter was
already a subject of investigation," he said when questioned by Yeo on why he
sent three letters to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister in
the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz to explain
his views and his stand on the video clip after reading the article and
transcript of the video clip.
Ahmad Fairuz testified yesterday that he decided to send the letters to the
three personalities because they were the representatives from the Executive
branch and since he was the head of the judiciary, he was of the view that it
was necessary for him to inform the Executive about the allegations of him and
also his stand in denying the allegations.
Ahmad Fairuz said he wrote the letters to the three personalities to enable them
to answer questions in Parliament if the issue was raised.
"There were investigations going on. So, I feel I should not make any comment,"
Ahmad Fairuz added.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
