|
©Malaysiakini
(Used by permission)
by Chua Sue-Ann
The royal commission of inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal was put ‘on trial’
today with lawyers debating its terms of reference in relation to the
admissibility of evidence not directly related to the issue of judicial
appointments in 2001.
The evidence they contested related to details of a holiday lawyer VK Lingam
took with former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin in New Zealand in December 1994 which
supposedly illustrates the close relationship between the two.
Yesterday, Lingam - the lawyer allegedly featured in a secretly-filmed video
clip in 2001 discussing the appointment of judges - refused to answer further
questions about the said holiday.
His lawyer R Thayalan had submitted that the evidence pertaining to the holiday
was ‘irrelevant’ and should be expunged from the hearing.
Proceedings today resumed with lawyers making submissions on the relevance of
the New Zealand holiday in relation to the inquiry’s five-point terms of
reference.
Representing the Bar Council, Robert Lazar argued that the issue before the
commission was not limited only to the appointment of judges but involved the
full context of the conversation featured in the video clip. This included how
judicial decisions were arrived at, he said.
“The fixing of cases goes hand-in-hand with the fixing of judicial appointments.
(We) can’t separate (these issues),” he said.
“I will be impolite and say it’s the fixing of judges, fixing of appointments
and the conversation also relates to the fixing of decisions of cases. That is
what the conversation is about.
“We cannot put on blinkers thinking that only judges are fixed and that it ends
there,” he said.
‘Fixing of cases’
Lazar argued this when referring to the commission’s third term of reference
which is to ascertain the veracity of the conversation recorded in the video
clip.
Lazar pointed out that there were specific events referred to in the telephone
conversation that suggested an intention to influence judicial appointments, of
favourable treatment under certain judges and less desirable treatments under
other judges.
When commissioner Steve Shim questioned if Lazar was attempting to widen the
scope of the inquiry, the latter replied that the issues at hand went beyond
just judicial appointments.
“What we’re really looking at is not (only) the appointment of judges but also
the fixing of cases and other consequences,” he said.
Counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, representing former Chief Justice Ahmad
Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, also sought to exclude details of the 1994 holiday.
Kamarul cited the Evidence Act as a guide to what was admissible but Shim told
him that the commission was not bound by the Act.
Counsel then said that while evidence of the New Zealand vacation may imply a
closeness between the two parties involved, it would not necessarily mean
judicial misconduct had been committed.
At this juncture, commissioner Mahadev Shankar reminded Kamarul that there may
be other important evidences that have yet to be produced to the commission.
Kamarul said he remained open to the possibility of further evidence suggesting
links between Eusoff and Lingam which could have resulted in judicial brokering.
“I realise that evidence has not come out yet but when it does, perhaps the
commissioners may make the necessary inferential exercise to make it relevant,”
Kamarul said.
Heated exchange
Counsel Alex de Silva representing Loh Gwo Burne - the man who admitted to
filming the controversial video clip in 2001 - said he was in favour of
retaining evidence of the New Zealand holiday as there has not been evidence
otherwise.
“The New Zealand holiday shows closeness ... there could well be presumption
that they were still close in 2001 unless evidence suggests otherwise,” he said.
Other counsel who made their brief submissions today on whether the commission
should accept details of the New Zealand vacation were Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer M
Puravalen, former chief justice Dzaiddin Abdullah’s lawyer Khoo Guan Huat, civil
society groups’ legal representative Azhar Azizan Harun and Lingam’s estranged
brother Thirunama Karasu’s (counsel John Fang.
Eusoff Chin’s (pix, left) newly-appointed counsel Zamani Ibrahim, Hazman Ahmad
and Mohamed Fauzi Mat Zain will make their submissions on Friday.
Wee Choo Keong, representing Thirunama, today made repeated attempts to make a
verbal submission despite his written submission but was rejected by the
commission after a heated exchange with chairperson Haidar Mohamed Noor.
Wee reluctantly sat down after Shim advised him to make his oral submissions
based on the relevant parts of his client’s evidence which the commission will
point out in due time.
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
