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

©The Star (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip did not make any binding or conclusive decisions but the findings and recommendations cannot be reviewed, the High Court heard.

The five persons implicated in the report are seeking leave for judicial review over the findings of the commission.

Senior Federal Counsel Azizah Nawawi submitted that the commission was merely performing its statutory functions.

Under Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, she said the commission was specified with the subject of inquiry, and furnished with five terms of reference, including ascertaining the authenticity of the video clip.

In the commission's findings and recommendations, Azizah argued that the video clip's authenticity was verified and that the person who was speaking on the phone identified as Datuk V.K. Lingam.

Azizah further stressed that the commission did not make a decision in the context of Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

In this case, there was no decision made by the commission which affected the rights of the applicants or their obligations, she submitted before Justice Abdul Kadir Musa in asking for the leave application to be dismissed with costs.

On behalf of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, she objected over leave application for judicial review by five of the six persons, who want to quash the relevant parts of the report which implicate them.

The five are prominent lawyer Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Barisan Nasional and Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former Chief Justices Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Azizah submitted that the report was not formulated by any individual commissioner but was prepared by the commission as a whole.

She argued that as such the commissioners should not be liable to any suit or other proceedings.

She said the commissioners were protected from being sued under Section 21(1) of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950.

She also objected to three applicants – Tengku Adnan, Eusoff and Ahmad Fairuz – naming the commissioners individually as respondents in the application.

“It is only the commission, being the public authority, that can be named in any proceeding. For this reason, we submit that the applications for leave be dismissed with costs as proper parties are not before this court,” she added.

Justice Abdul Kadir set Aug 27 for continuation of the hearing.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed