|
 ©The
Star (Used by permission)
• Objection to NZ trip evidence but Bar says it's relevant
• Stick to appointment of judges, says Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer
• Counsel: Leave out links to law firm and former king
• Wee annoys commission
• Eusoff picks three lawyers
KUALA LUMPUR: Evidence on the personal relationship between
lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam and former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin is
relevant to prove the existence of interference in the appointment of judge and
case fixings, the Royal Commission of Inquiry heard.
Robert Lazar, who appeared for the Malaysian Bar, argued that
those facts should be allowed into the inquiry because they were referred to in
the V.K. Lingam video clip.
“They are related to the contents of the conversation in the
clip, not only on the fixing of judges but also of cases.
“We have to ask ourselves whether the fixing of judges is the
end itself or a means to an end. The speaker in the video clip was trying to
re-establish links to judges to achieve his ends,” argued Lazar on Day 7 of the
inquiry.
Lazar then set out several instances from the clip
transcript, which pointed to reference of closeness of relationship between
Lingam and Eusoff as well as how Eusoff’s successor Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah was
attacking Lingam’s cases.
“The terms of reference of this inquiry must be the contents
of the phone conversation (in the video clip).
“The objection to this evidence has to be refused and we
should proceed with the line of questioning,” he said, adding that the question
of probative value of the evidence, as raised by former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad
Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim’s counsel, should be reserved till the end of the
inquiry.
“We are not saying such a submission cannot be made but it
should be done at the end of the case.
“The Commission has been asked to hear submission on
probative value of the evidence even before the evidence is complete.
“If the objection is with the intensity of the line of
questioning or as some people suggest, we were rather harsh or oppressive to the
witnesses, the Commission can control. But I don’t think we were in that
position,” said Lazar.
Asked by Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor as to
how fixing of cases could be read within the terms of reference of the inquiry,
Lazar said it came “hand-in-hand with the fixing of judicial appointments.”
“You cannot separate one from the other. This is not what we
are saying.
“This is what the speaker in the video clip said,” he added.
At one point, Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar punned
Lazar’s submissions with a phrase in the video clip.
“One “pom” refers to fixing of appointment of judges.
“Another “pom” refers to fixing of cases,” he said.
Lazar: There are two other ‘poms’ missing. It’s pom,
pom, pom, pom.
Commission member Tan Sri Steve Shim: The implication
of the pom, pom, pom, pom is that Lingam can get free access to Eusoff’s
chambers. And that is an adverse inference. But there may be other inferences to
be drawn. Is that fair?
Lazar: If there is evidence that is in favour of the
person mentioned, I’m sure it’s forthcoming. We are not here on a judge-bashing
exercise.
Haidar: After hearing the evidence, I wonder whether
in our report we can mention judge fixing in general.
Lazar: At the end of the day, we will also be making
submissions on what ought to be considered in the report.
Haidar: I’m just thinking aloud about our area of
observation.
Shim: I’m rather concerned about the scope of the
terms of reference. Including the evidence has widened the scope to almost
infinity.
Lazar: It’s not just fixing of judges but fixing of
cases. What other consequences would come later, I cannot say at this juncture.
The ACA had apparently exonerated Eusoff on the New Zealand
trip. We are not here to review the ACA investigation. We are told that the ACA
had an inquiry then and exonerated him. If that’s the case, we might as well
close this inquiry.
Haidar: Perhaps it would be different if the ACA
decision were a judicial decision. Then we are perhaps bound.
Mahadev: The reason the ACA did not prosecute does not
amount to exoneration. That’s what we think as far as we are concerned. It’s up
to the Attorney-General to decide whether or not to prosecute. Is that what
you’re saying?
Lazar: Yes. With regard to the argument that the issue
had been decided by the Federal Court in the case of MGG Pillai against Tan Sri
Vincent Tan, the issue of the photograph was never decided.
Haidar: Yes. I asked Thayalan yesterday (Monday) and
he said “No”.
The hearing continues tomorrow.
Objection to NZ trip evidence but Bar says it's relevant
KUALA LUMPUR: Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, counsel for former Chief Justice Tun
Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, yesterday lent support to lawyer Datuk V.K.
Lingam's objection to include evidence of his personal relationship with another
former Chief Justice – including their holiday in New Zealand – in the Royal
Commission of Inquiry.
However, the Malaysian Bar insists that the evidence is relevant to prove
existence of interference in the appointment of judges and case fixing.
Among the other inquiry highlights are:
• Former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah objects to
references linking him with a law firm and a former Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
• Another former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin has appointed three
lawyers to represent him in the inquiry.
Stick to appointment of judges, says Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer
KUALA LUMPUR: The inquiry into the Datuk V.K. Lingam video clip should be
confined only to the appointment of judges as stated in its full title, the
Royal Commission heard.
Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, counsel for former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz
Sheikh Abdul Halim, said the objective of setting up this commission was
revealed in its title, as follows:
“Commission of Inquiry of the Video Clip Recording of Images of a Person
Purported to be an Advocate and Solicitor Speaking on the Telephone on Matters
Regarding the Appointment of Judges Under The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950.”
As such, he submitted that the terms of reference for the inquiry could have
meaning only by reference to the specific objective of the establishment of the
commission.
“Conversely, the reading of the terms of reference without the focal point of
the purpose of the commission’s establishment leaves the terms open-ended
without a sense of boundary,” he submitted in support of an objection by Lingam
on questions relating to his New Zealand trip in December 1994.
On Monday, Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan objected to the line of questioning by
the Malaysian Bar, saying Lingam’s holiday to New Zealand with Tun Eusoff Chin,
who was Chief Justice then, was not relevant to the inquiry.
Thayalan submitted that the trip did not fall within the commission’s terms of
reference and that the commission was set up only to look into matters regarding
a video clip on the appointment of judges.
Kamarul Hisham also argued that the answers given by Lingam and Eusoff on their
closeness, which had been alleged in the video, had no probative value in the
inquiry because it was not relevant to the appointment of judges.
However, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar told him the question of probative
value should only be addressed at the end of the inquiry after all evidence had
been adduced.
In their written submissions, leading officers DPPs Datuk Nordin Hassan and
Datuk Azmi Ariffin submitted that the issue of closeness and any other issues
that were not related to the appointment of judges did not come within the terms
of reference.
They said the commission was only confined to the inquiry on the video clip with
regard to the appointment of judges.
“Looking at the transcript, it is certainly not the purpose of the establishment
of this commission to ascertain or determine the truth or otherwise of all
matters mentioned in the transcript,” they submitted.
Several examples highlighted by the prosecutors to emphasise this point included
the suggestions that Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah wanted to hold office as
Chief Justice until the age of 68, and that Tan Sri Robert Kuok was very
brilliant and (the late) Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong was “already rich.”
Counsel: Leave out links to law firm and former king
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah has objected to
references made about his links with a law firm and a former Yang di-Pertuan
Agong.
His counsel Khoo Guan Huat said Datuk V.K. Lingam should not use those facts
about Dzaiddin and forcibly include it in the inquiry.
“My client finds it objectionable and mischievous for him to take an example
that falls outside the spectrum of evidence to exclude evidence that may fall
inside the spectrum,” he said.
Khoo added that Lingam’s lawyer R. Thayalan had alluded to Dzaiddin’s
relationship with a Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the law firm Skrine.
“If for some reason during the course of this inquiry the behaviour of Tun
Dzaiddin is relevant, then he can be examined by the counsel,” Khoo argued.
On Monday, Datuk V.K. Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan argued that the commission of
inquiry could not be open-ended in nature. Otherwise, the commission would be
entitled to look into any misbehaviour of all persons whose names were mentioned
in the video clip.
In objecting to questions relating to his client’s New Zealand trip in 1994, the
lawyer gave several examples that the commission would have to consider in the
event that it admitted evidence on the trip.
Among others, he said the question of whether Dzaiddin had misbehaved when he
joined Skrine immediately after his retirement had to be considered by the
commission.
Wee annoys commission
KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Wee Choo Keong got into trouble with the Royal Commission
of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip again after he annoyed the
commissioners.
It started when he stood up to make submissions on the scope of the commission
of inquiry’s terms of reference immediately after his co-counsel John Fan, who
is also representing Datuk V.K. Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor asked him why he was submitting
when his co-counsel had just finished.
The lawyer replied that he was going to make submissions on different points.
Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar then pointed out that after going through the
lawyer’s 13-page submissions, he found that it referred to facts and allegations
that had already been given to the panel last week.
“This submission is to decide where the limits are. If you’re going to repeat
all the material here, you’re going to be covering a lot of colourful
allegations that we might not want to admit at the end of the day.
“Let us decide on the law first,” he said.
Haidar then told Wee that he did not have to elaborate his points and that the
panel would read his written submissions.
However, the lawyer insisted that he had a few more points to add.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim then pointed out to Wee that the panel had read
Thirunama Karasu’s statement and that it felt that not everything should be
adduced.
“We think there are a few paragraphs that are relevant and we will ask you to
submit on those paragraphs,” he said.
“We will wait a short while later for the result. You can submit later when
we’ve indicated to you the relevant paragraphs.”
However, Wee kept insisting on submitting a few points despite his co-counsel
pulling him to sit down, prompting Shim to repeat himself.
When the lawyer refused to listen, Haidar ordered him to take his seat.
“Mr Wee Choo Keong, did you get it clear? Don’t argue with me. Can you please
sit down? We will give you the opportunity to submit.
“My commissioner has already said that we’ll go through the statement and tell
you which parts are relevant so you can submit on them.
“Do I make myself clear?” Haidar said.
“(You) don’t have to shout,” Wee replied before sitting down.
Eusoff picks three lawyers
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Eusoff Chin has appointed three lawyers to represent him in
the inquiry into the Lingam video clip.
The counsel – Zamani Ibrahim, Mohamad Fozi Md Zain and Datuk Hazman Ahmad –
showed up at the inquiry for the first time yesterday.
Zamani Ibrahim had represented PAS candidates when election results were
disputed in courts in 2000.
He is married to High Court judge Datuk Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who was special
officer to former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah in 2001 and former
Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
Mohamad Fozi was a former senior federal counsel and deputy public prosecutor.
He contested on a PAS ticket against former Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar Tan Sri
Mohamad Isa Abdul Samad in the 2004 general election.
Hazman is an ex-deputy public prosecutor.
Eusoff was testifying as the 11th witness in the inquiry last week when the
commission halted proceedings to allow him to appoint a lawyer.
Just before that, the Malaysian Bar had grilled the former Chief Justice on his
New Zealand holiday with Datuk V.K. Lingam in December 1994.
Yesterday Zamani indicated to the commission that Eusoff would continue his
testimony on Friday.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
