©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
• Why Fairuz didn't defend judiciary
• Dr M is my friend, says Tan
• ACA: No phone records found
• An outrageous lie, claims Lazar
• I do not hate Eusoff Chin,
• Dzaiddin: I was marginalised
• Tycoon hits out at Lingam
KUALA LUMPUR: The Tan Sri–ship conferred on former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 was irregular, said another of the country's top judges.
Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah said Ahmad Fairuz had told him
that his Tan Sri–ship was based on a recommendation by Tourism Minister Datuk
Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor, making it "improper".
"Honorific titles for judges are always based on the recommendation of their
chief justice as the head of the judiciary, but in Ahmad Fairuz's case, I had
not filled any forms (for the recommendation)," said Dzaiddin, who was then the
chief justice.
In his testimony before the Royal Commission yesterday, Dzaiddin said Ahmad
Fairuz had approached him at an official dinner on the eve of then Yang
di–Pertuan Agong Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin's birthday.
"He apologised to me, saying that he had received a Tan Sri–ship which had not
been recommended by me, the head of the judiciary at the time. He told me
categorically that it was done by Tengku Adnan," he said, in reply to a question
by his counsel Wong Choong Wah.
Wong asked him what his reaction was when Ahmad Fairuz spoke
to him.
Dzaiddin: "Well, I was surprised because it was improper."
Wong had earlier asked him if he had made the recommendation for Ahmad Fairuz.
"No, I did not," Dzaiddin replied.
Earlier in the day, Bar Council representative Yeo Yang Poh also questioned
Ahmad Fairuz on the conferring of awards on judges.
Ahmad Fairuz said he had recommended state and federal awards such as Datukships
and Tan Sri–ships. He said it was the normal practice for the chief justice, as
head of the judiciary, to propose such awards to his subordinates.
Yeo: You received your Tan Sri title in 2002. Was it through Dzaiddin?
Ahmad Fairuz: I don't know. I was only notified that I will be conferred the
award.
He also told Dzaiddin's counsel, Wong, that he did not know whether the award
was obtained through Dzaiddin's recommendation.
"I got the letter and I informed Dzaiddin about it," he said.
Why Fairuz didn't defend judiciary
KUALA LUMPUR: The judiciary was scandalised after the release of the video clip
but the then chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim did not come out
to defend the institution.
In stating this, Bar Council representative Yeo Yang Poh,
asked Ahmad Fairuz why he did not initiate contempt proceedings against Datuk
V.K. Lingam at the time.
Ahmad Fairuz: I was unsure of the person in the clip and decided to leave
investigations to the Anti–Corruption Agency (ACA). I did not want to jeopardise
their probe.
The former chief justice, who retired on Nov 1, almost two months after the
video clip was made public, also said he did not contact Lingam fearing the
lawyer would make allegations against him.
Ahmad Fairuz, the 14th witness at the Royal Commission of Inquiry, admitted the
video clip had scandalised the judiciary, and it would amount to judicial
impropriety.
Yeo: Public confidence and integrity of the judiciary were of
utmost importance. It has been four months since the clip was made public. Did
you issue a statement to clarify the matter?
Ahmad Fairuz: No.
Yeo: As chief justice then, why didn't you issue a direct denial at the earliest
time possible?
Ahmad Fairuz: Because the clip and the man in the video were being investigated.
Yeo: Is it not acceptable, that you as head of the judiciary, did not issue a
statement about the clip.
Ahmad Fairuz: I did not want to jeopardise the investigations.
Yeo: Why didn't you initiate contempt proceedings against Lingam?
Before Ahmad Fairuz could answer, his counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin,
objected to the line of questioning, claiming Yeo was not being fair to his
client.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar joined in the line of questioning.
Shankar: As the head of judiciary, wasn't it the basic thing to do when the
institution was being scandalised?
Ahmad Fairuz maintained his stand, saying that the matter was being investigated
by the ACA and that he was unsure if the clip was fabricated.
"I was not sure who was the person in the clip as the images were unclear," the
former chief justice said.
Shankar said he accepted Ahmad Fairuz's explanation.
To a question by counsel Wee Choo Keong, who is representing Lingam's brother,
V. Thirunama Karasu, Ahmad Fairuz said he was apprehensive about getting in
touch with Lingam because "things would have turned against me".
"I feared that he will make allegations against me that I was trying to
influence him," he said.
Ahmad Fairuz said he sent letters to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Minister in the
Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz on Sept 20 last year because
they were members of the executive and they needed to know what was happening.
Shankar: Why the need to explain to the executive, but not to the public?
Ahmad Fairuz: I was implicated and felt that the PM, as the head of the
executive, should know. The executive is part of the (Federal) legislature. If
the matter was brought up in Parliament, they will be able to answer.
Dr M is my friend, says Tan
KUALA LUMPUR: Tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan yesterday described former prime
minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as a friend.
Tan, 55, told the Royal Commission of Inquiry that Dr
Mahathir was an excellent, good and helpful man who had given him a lot of
guidance in business.
Asked by conducting officer Datuk Azmi Ariffin on how he got to know Dr Mahathir,
Tan said it started when he was involved in the McDonald's fast food franchise
business.
"I met Dr Mahathir in the early 1980s when I was involved in the franchise
business. Dr Mahathir was also interested in it. From there, we became friends,"
he said.
Asked whether he regarded Dr Mahathir as a close family friend, Tan said Dr
Mahathir was the prime minister for a long time and he would not want to go
around telling people that he was close to Dr Mahathir. –– Bernama
ACA: No phone records found
KUALA LUMPUR: No records have been found of any phone conversation between
lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam and former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul
Halim on the night of Dec 20, 2001, when the controversial video clip is said to
have been filmed.
Anti–Corruption Agency officer Chuah Lay Choo told the Royal Commission of
Inquiry yesterday her checks with telecommunication companies on the mobile and
fixed line records of the two men drew a blank.
Chuah, who returned to take the stand, said Lingam had registered four fixed
lines at different houses in Kelana Jaya on the date of filming, but there were
no records of any calls made to Ahmad Fairuz.
The clip is alleged to have been filmed between 7pm and 11pm at a house in
Kelana Jaya where the lawyer lives with his family.
Businessman Loh Mui Fah had earlier told the commission that the man in the clip
was Lingam and that his son, Gwo Burne, had recorded the conversation.
Mui Fah said Lingam told him that the other person on the line was Ahmad Fairuz,
who made the call to Lingam.
Ahmad Fairuz had denied speaking to Lingam on the telephone.
"All the calls did not exceed eight minutes and none was made to Ahmad Fairuz,"
Chuah said to a question from deputy public prosecutor Datuk Nordin Hassan, who
is assisting in the inquiry.
She said the records of Ahmad Fairuz's mobile line and fixed lines also did not
show that he had made any calls to Lingam on Dec 20, 2001.
"There were two calls made on his mobile phone and both went to a voicemail."
Four of his fixed lines, including three registered with the judiciary, did not
have records of calls to Lingam's lines.
Chuah said she also checked with Mutiara Communications Sdn Bhd, a tele–communications
company in which tycoon Vincent Tan had a majority stake. "The company was
renamed DiGi in 1998 and had changed hands to another party."
Chuah said Lingam had two prepaid mobile lines in 2001 and both were not
registered.
She said there was no record of Ahmad Fairuz having registered a mobile phone
with DiGi.
On Jan 16, the commission ordered Chuah to obtain the phone records of the
lawyer and Ahmad Fairuz.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor told the officer that the panel
would assist her if these companies refused to co–operate.
Haidar made the remark on that day after it was ascertained, by Mui Fah and Gwo
Burne, that the conversation took place on Dec 20, 2001.
She could not verify the date earlier because the father and son only revealed
their identify on Jan 12, two days before the inquiry started.
Chuah will be examined by Bar Council lawyer Ranjit Singh today.
An outrageous lie, claims Lazar
by K.Harinderan
KUALA LUMPUR: Calling it an attempt to discredit him, lawyer Robert Lazar hit
out at Datuk V.K. Lingam for alleging that he had lobbied for a position as an
appellate judge.
"It's an outrageous lie," the senior partner with Messrs
Shearn Delamore & Co told the inquiry yesterday.
Lazar, 50, was given the chance to answer allegations made against him the
previous day that he had sought Lingam's help in arranging a meeting with former
prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's son, Mirzan.
Lingam had told the inquiry that Lazar was "desperate" in wanting a seat at the
Court of Appeal.
In his 20–minute testimony yesterday, a calm and collected Lazar said Lingam's
allegations were intended to discredit him during the inquiry.
"It was also an attempt to disqualify me as a representative
of the Malaysian Bar in this inquiry. It was an attack on my credibility as a
lawyer."
Questioned by Malaysian Bar counsel Yeo Yang Poh, Lazar said he had no reason to
abandon his career to seek a judicial post.
"At that time (in early 2000), I was 43 years old and had no reason to abandon
my legal career of more than 20 years."
He said the "request" to Lingam never arose in whatever manner.
Lingam had alleged he had a drink with Lazar when the latter allegedly asked him
if he could ask Mirzan for the favour as Lingam was then representing the former
premier's son in a case.
"I categorically deny I had a drink with Lingam at any time," said Lazar.
Lingam's council, R. Thayalan, however, pressed on during cross–examination.
"I would suggest to you and based on Lingam's sworn testimony that you had a
drink at the Seng Nam Restaurant, here, where you asked him to speak to Dr
Mahathir through Mirzan for the position."
Lazar denied this, adding that the conversation did not take place.
While on the stand on Monday, Lingam was questioned if he had socialised with
Lazar and the witness had said "no".
At the end of proceedings, Lazar told the New Straits Times: "Other than
my testimony, I do not want to waste more time on the outrageous lies."
Last week, Lazar and another Bar lawyer Ranjit Singh, had grilled Lingam on his
1994 holiday in New Zealand with the then chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin.
Both lawyers produced group photographs of Lingam and Eusoff Chin's families
together during the holiday, which were tendered as exhibits.
Also tendered were flight details and itinerary.
Both Lingam and Eusoff Chin denied that the holiday was planned with the former
chief justice claiming that he met the lawyer at a resort in New Zealand where
the former had asked if his family could tag along.
'I do not hate Eusoff Chin
KUALA LUMPUR: Former chief justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah dislikes his
predecessor Tun Eusoff Chin.
"No, I don't hate him. I just dislike him, that's all,"
Dzaiddin told the Royal Commission of Inquiry yesterday.
His statement, greeted by quiet applause from the public gallery, was made in
response to a question by the inquiry officer, Datuk Nordin Hassan, on the V.K.
Lingam video clip.
"The lawyer shown in the clip says this about you: 'Dzaiddin hates Eusoff Chin,
you understand?' Is it true that you hate Eusoff Chin?" asked Nordin.
After the reply, Nordin asked why he felt that way about Eusoff, who was chief
justice from 1994 to 2000.
"Well, he keeps not telling the truth, especially concerning
the conferring of my Tan Sri–ship," said Dzaiddin, 70.
Senior judges are conferred honorific titles on the recommendation of the chief
justice as head of judiciary, he said.
Dzaiddin, the 16th witness, also said he had been marginalised when he became
Federal Court judge in 1993 until his elevation to chief justice in 2000.
This came to light when Razman Hadri, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, questioned
Dzaiddin on his interview with the New Straits Times shortly after his
promotion.
Razman: This interview states you felt "marginalised" and there seemed to be "an
inner circle" which you were not a member of. What did you mean by "marginalised"?
Dzaiddin: It means what it implies.
Razman: Who was in this inner circle?
Dzaiddin: That I can't recollect, but there was a perception at the time that it
existed.
Razman: Who marginalised you, Tun?
Dzaiddin: Well, in the article, the word marginalised is in inverted commas.
Maybe you should ask the journalist what it means (laughs).
Razman persisted and asked: "Was it Eusoff Chin who marginalised you?"
Dzaiddin: Yes, he did.
Earlier, when he was asked whether there were any camps in the judiciary, as the
lawyer in the clip had stated, Dzaiddin said there were none.
"I don't think so, I was in control of the judiciary during my time. Before
that, we just did our work, we didn't care if there were camps or not."
Counsel for V. Tirunama Karasu, Wee Choo Keong, referred him to the transcript
where commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim was said to have acquired his Tan Sri–ship
during his tenure as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak from 2000 to 2006, faster
than his predecessor, Tan Sri Chong Siew Fai.
Wee: (reads the transcript) "Steve Shim got so fast. You know, Tan Sri Chong
waited for four years for Tan Sri ship".
Wee: Tun Dzaiddin, did you recommend Steve Shim for his Tan Sri–ship?
Dzaiddin: Yes, I did. I recommended Steve Shim. I remember because Chong Siew
Fai suffered the same fate as I. We both had to wait four years before we got
our Tan Sri–ship.
Dzaiddin is the last of three former chief justices called to testify. Apart
from Eusoff, Dzaiddin's successor Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim was called
earlier.
Unlike the statements by Eusoff and Ahmad Fairuz, however, Dzaiddin's testimony
was not peppered with denials and claims of non–recollection.
Before Dzaiddin was released, his counsel, Wong Choong Wah, informed the
commission that his client was prepared to answer questions the commission might
have on the latest clip released by Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim.
Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor said questions on the clip, released on
Monday, would not be necessary. "The new clip is not within the scope of the
inquiry," he said.
Dzaiddin told reporters later that the contents of the clip were lies. "I
categorically deny all the matters said in relation to me."
Dzaiddin: I was marginalised
by Anis Ibrahim
KUALA LUMPUR: It was a day of revelations as the hearing of the Royal Commission
of Inquiry entered its 11th day yesterday.
Testifying for the first time, former chief justice Tun
Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah said he disliked his predecessor Tun Eusoff Chin.
He said Eusoff, who was the chief justice when Dzaiddin was a Federal Court
judge, had marginalised him.
Dzaiddin also said the Tan Sri–ship conferred on the then chief judge of Malaya
Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 was improper as it was based on a
recommendation by the then deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department
Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor.
The conferring of titles on judges, Dzaiddin said, was always based on
recommendations by the chief justice as the head of the judiciary.
The commission is trying to establish, among other things,
the authenticity of a video clip recorded on Dec 20, 2001, which allegedly shows
lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam brokering the appointment of judges with Ahmad Fairuz.
Ahmad Fairuz told the inquiry on Monday that he had never spoken to Lingam on
the telephone.
Yesterday, another witness, Anti–Corruption Agency senior superintendent Chuah
Lay Choo said she could find no records of any phone conversation between Ahmad
Fairuz and Datuk V.K. Lingam on the night of Dec 20, 2001.
Tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, meanwhile, denied that he had ever discussed the
appointment of judges with Tengku Adnan or Lingam.
In his testimony, Dzaiddin said former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
had twice rejected his recommendation that Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad, now
deceased, be elevated to chief judge of Malaya.
Dzaiddin's counsel, Wong Choong Wah, asked how he could be sure that Malek was
the right choice.
"I would recommend a judge who is senior, compatible, has the capacity and most
importantly, the integrity. Malek was the most senior in the Federal Court so it
was logical that I should nominate him to the prime minister."
Wong: Did the PM accept your recommendation?
Dzaiddin: No, he didn't accept it.
Wong: Did the PM recommend anybody else?
Dzaiddin: I remember that when he didn't accept Malek, he recommended (former
Federal Court judge) Tan Sri Mohktar Abdullah and Ahmad Fairuz, in that order.
Wong: In August 2002, after (former Court of Appeal president) Tan Sri Wan Adnan
Wan Ismail's death, you once again wrote to Dr Mahathir and recommended Malek
Ahmad as chief judge of Malaya.
Dzaiddin: Yes, I nominated Malek as chief judge of Malaya to take over from
Ahmad Fairuz and in the event Dr Mahathir didn't agree to it, I recommended
Datuk Siti Norma Yaakob, who was the next most senior.
Wong: So this was the second time you recommended Malek as chief judge of
Malaya? And both times, he was rejected by Dr Mahathir.
Dzaiddin: I agree.
Wong: In October 2001, you also recommended five names as candidates for High
Court judges?
Dzaiddin: Yes.
Wong: Were these names mentioned in the video clip?
Dzaiddin: I read the names in the transcript and saw that they were the same
names I had recommended.
Wong: Were you surprised to see what you wrote in the letter on the tape?
Dzaiddin: I was very surprised and wondered how it had leaked out.
Razlan Hadri, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked Dzaiddin about the six names
he had submitted for promotion to the Court of Appeal.
He said in June 2002, six months after the alleged conversation in the video
clip, six judges were promoted to the Court of Appeal.
"The judges are Datuk Abdul Aziz Mohamad, Datuk Richard Malanjum, Datuk Arifin
Zakaria, Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff, Datuk Hashim Yusoff and Datuk
Pajan Singh Gill.
"Out of these six, how many were your recommendations?" asked Razlan.
"I had nominated Abdul Aziz Mohamad and Arifin Zakaria. I believe the other four
were from another list submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Government," said
Dzaiddin.
Razlan also asked Dzaiddin to elaborate on Dr Mahathir's rejection of Malek as
chief judge of Malaya.
"Did you ask why your recommendations were rejected?" asked Razlan.
"No, I did not ask why," Dzaiddin replied.
Asked whether he had any private discussions with Dr Mahathir on Malek's
proposed appointment, Dzaiddin said: "No, I was very formal."
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim asked whether any reasons were given during the
consultation process when his candidates were rejected.
"You didn't ask for reasons, why? Do you expect reasons to be given?" Shim
asked.
Dzaiddin said: "I would normally expect reasons to be given, but under the
Federal Constitution, the PM is not obliged to give reasons."
Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar then remarked that 'consultation' on judicial
appointments implied some "give and take".
"If no reasons are given, what kind of a consultation is that?" he asked.
"I see that as a prerogative of the PM," said Dzaiddin.
Shim then asked again: "So you expected the PM to give you a reason for
rejecting your recommendations?"
"Yes, but I didn't get them," said Dzaiddin.
Tycoon hits out at Lingam
by V. Anbalagan and K. Harinderan
KUALA LUMPUR: Tan Sri Vincent Tan is distancing himself from Datuk V.K. Lingam,
his lawyer for more than a decade, as he had tarnished him through the
controversial video clip.
Tan said he was disappointed with Lingam for talking rubbish,
adding that the professional relationship between them would be re–evaluated.
"This will be done objectively and with compassion," he said when questioned by
Bar Council representative Yeo Yang Poh.
Business tycoon Tan was the 18th witness to take the stand before the Royal
Commission of Inquiry.
He said his relationship with Lingam started in the 1970s during his tenure as a
unit manager at American International Assurance (AIA).
He had lost touch with Lingam for some time and renewed it
later when Lingam represented him in legal matters.
He said he was always impressed with Lingam's stories about his court battles.
He also described him as a diligent lawyer.
But all that is now in jeopardy as Tan said he was disappointed with Lingam for
"throwing his name" around and speaking rubbish when he had paid him so much in
legal fees.
"I don't know who he was trying to impress. He has made a fool of himself in
this.
"I will re–evaluate this relationship as he has tarnished my reputation."
Questioned by lawyer Wee Choo Keong, who was appearing for Lingam's brother, V.K.
Thirunama Karasu, Tan said his relationship with Lingam was not extremely close.
"I am only close to the woman I love. By the way, I don't love men," he said to
the laughter of those in the courtroom.
At this juncture, Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor advised Tan to
give direct and brief answers.
"I'm not close to him (Lingam). He was my counsel. If you do a lot of good work
for me, you will be close to me."
The tycoon was replying to questions on passages of the transcript of a
conversation purportedly by Lingam, brokering judicial appointments on the
phone.
Some of the statements named Tan as one of those with influence over former
prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Asked why Lingam chose to use his name, Tan said: "Maybe he feels I'm close to
Dr Mahathir and wanted to impress someone by using my name."
After viewing the 14–minute video clip, Tan said the man in the clip "looks like
him and sounds like him but I cannot be 100 per cent sure that it is him".
This drew another round of laughter from those present as his answer was similar
to that of Lingam's last week.
He did not get in touch with Lingam to clarify his identify in the clip but
instructed his lawyers to verify it with Lingam.
"My lawyers told me that Lingam was also unsure whether the person in the clip
was him," he said.
Tan added that he did not lodge a police report over the clip as he was busy and
had many business appointments.
Moreover, he said it was pointless to file a defamation suit as such action did
not pay.
He quoted a case against a journalist who he sued for defamation and was awarded
a sum of RM10 million, but added, "I did not receive a single sen."
Instead, he had to spend about RM1.5 million on legal costs.
"It was a bad business deal."