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

• Mahadev denies receiving pecuniary advantage from Lingam
• Khoo says reason for his recusal was more conjectural than real
• Recusal applications rejected

KUALA LUMPUR, Fri: Day 17 of the Royal Commission of Enquiry into the V.K. Lingam Video Clip started at 10.05am.

DPP Nordin stood up and informed the court that Jayanthi is present and prepared to continue to take the stand.

However, Nahendran Navaratnam then introduced himself to the Commissioners as counsel for Dato’ Dr. Joseph Eravelly, the cardiologist mentioned in the recusal application by Tun Eusoff Chin, through his counsel Dato' Hazman Admad.

Nahendran informed the Commissioners that he has filed a Statutory Declaration affirmed by Dr. Joseph and copies have been extended to the Secretariat and all the counsel involved. He added that Dr. Joseph is present and is prepared to take the stand to refute the allegations levelled against him.

After assuring all counsel and Commissioners were furnished a copy of the Statutory Declaration, Dato' Hazman Ahmad stood up and said that he only received a copy of the Statutory declaration in the morning and he needed time to seek further instructions from his client, Tun Eusoff Chin and hence he sought an adjournment to hear the application on a further date.

Nahendran objected to the adjournment on the grounds that the allegations are very serious and Dato' Hazman should have obtained full instructions and all relevant evidence to refute the averments, if necessary in the Statutory Declaration and not further wasting the time of the Commissioners.

Dato' Hazman however claimed that there was a clear dispute of facts and he needed his client or Dato' Lingam to clarify the facts alleged. He went on to say that if the Commissioners should disallow the adjournment and put Dr Joseph on the stand, he would want Dato' Lingam to appear as witness to rebut the allegations.

Dato' Mahadev Shankar then interjected “I have not contacted Dr Joseph at all. I have made this very clear. I don’t even want to take part in this application because I am the very subject matter. But I am entitled to say something at least. I am very concerned with all these collateral allegations and we have lost the point of reference for this Commission.”

“However, I want Tun Eusoff Chin, your client to feel comfortable with this inquiry”

Tan Sri Haidar pointed out to Dato' Hazman and said, “You should have put in an affidavit to support your allegations as opposed to seeking an adjournment to get instructions.”

Tan Sri Haidar then adjourned the proceedings for 30 minutes for Dato' Hazman to obtain instructions from his client.

Proceedings resumed at 10.50am.

Dato' Hazman informed the court that Nahendran insisted on putting Dr Joseph on the stand to provide evidence.

Looking perplexed, Nahendran stood up and clarified that neither he nor his client had insisted that. Nahendran continued to explain that his client, Dr Joseph is a well revered person with good professional reputation. His client, if allowed to take the stand as witness, would be given a chance to rebut the allegations levelled against him. Nahendran stressed that Dr Joseph is not taking the stand to assist any of the Commissioners vis a vis the recusal application but to rebut the allegations as his reputation is at stake.

At this juncture, Dato' Hazman insisted that if Dr. Joseph is allowed to take the stand, he wanted Dato' Lingam to appear as witness too.

Tan Sri Haidar, after hearing both parties out, ruled that Dr. Joseph would not be called as a witness and the hearing of the application would proceed.

Hearing proper then continued. Dato' Hazman referred to his recusal application and claimed that Dato' Lingam had paid for all the expenses for one Dr Edwards from Mayo Clinic in the US to treat Dato' Shankar. In fact he stressed that the question at hand is whether the air ticket and hotel accommodation for a total amount of RM4,368.00 were paid by Dato' Lingam to Dr. Edwards for the benefit of Dato' Shankar.

Thayalan appearing for Dato' Lingam then informed the court that he had faxed a copy of the Statutory Declaration to his client, and he wished to put on record that his client disputes all the facts contained in the Statutory Declaration.

Robert Lazaar, for the Malaysian Bar then said: “We oppose very strongly the application made. Facts were distorted. The best evidence of an email exhibited by Dato' Hazman does not suggest at all that Dato' Shankar had been treated by Dr, Edwards.”

“In fact, the email only shows Dr Edwards showing his gratitude towards the hospitality given during his holidays. If indeed Dr Edwards was invited down to Malaysia to treat Dato' Shankar, the email should contain the condition of the patient and to wish him a speedy recovery.”

Wong Chong Wah, appearing for Tun Dzaiddin after receiving instructions from his client informed the Commissioners that he does not support the application.

Alex De Silva, for Loh Gwo Burne and Azahar for Suaram and Hakam opposed the application too.

Dato' Shankar after hearing all parties, delivered a 15 minute long judgment in relation to the recusal application.

He started with “The expression “correct, correct, correct” has so firmly embedded in the Malaysian culture, in fact now the “korek, korek, korek” culture has also emerged.”

He said that this Commission should exercise its power to pursue the truth. All the counsel involved in the Commission are on the same side, even Dato' Hazman. With that frame of mind, he said truth will triumph and truth is forever.

He said that the recusal application is an attempt to scandalise the proceedings. In a nutshell, the application is about an allegation that Dato' Lingam brought Dr. Edwards to Malaysia to treat Dato' Shankar.

Dato' Shankar added, “These allegations are absolutely false. I categorically state that all the expenses of my disorder were paid by the government. The records of the hospital will amplify this.”

“I have total confidence in the doctors in Malaysia especially those who are treating me. I received various treatments and have successfully recovered.”

He went on to prove his eyesight by identifying the lawyers seated on the bench from the 1st row all the way to an observer seated on the last row at the public gallery.

“As to the allegation of hallucination, you have heard me all these while during the enquiry, you should then judge me whether I am hallucinating.”

He went on to say that he was not even aware of the facts of the recusal application until the papers were served on him. He continued to read his judgment and said that the allegation is a concoction. At no time, he was told by anybody that Dato' Lingam sponsored Dr Edwards to treat him. He said the sole purpose of Dr Edwards' visit to Malaysia was a family holiday and the incidental purposes were to attend a lecture and to visit the Director of Health of Malaysia.

The amount of time spent with Dr Edwards was nothing but an exaggerated act from the applicant as he only spent not more than 15 minutes with Dr Edwards when they met.

He further said that RM4,368.00 as alleged paid to Dr Edwards by Dato' Lingam for his treatment is such an insubstantial sum. “This has added much insult to my injury. This is yet another concoction”, said Dato' Shankar.

He continued to point out the fact that when he hosted a dinner for Dr Joseph and Dr Edwards, Dato' Lingam was not even invited.

He emphasised that he has never received any pecuniary benefit from Dato' Lingam and there is no interaction with him at all. He then dismissed the application and reserved his rights.

After hearing the application to recuse Dato' Shankar, the Commission heard the application to recuse Professor Dato' Khoo Kay Kim.

Thayalan for Dato' Lingam informed the Commission that he has nothing to add which was followed by Dato' Khoo delivering his short judgment dismissing the application.

The Commission then adjourned the proceedings to 2.30pm.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed