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

Contributed by Dipendra Harshad Rai and Syamsuriatina Ishak

• Eusoff denies "different camps" in the judiciary
• Relationship with Lingam one of judge and lawyer, says Ahmad Fairuz
• Conversation in video clip is a slander, says Fairuz
• Ahmad Fairuz: It was a fabrication
• Eusoff: A very big lie
• Allegations made after I failed to give him bungalow, says Lingam

KUALA LUMPUR: Proceedings started with Yeo Yang Poh making an application before the Commission for Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, to testify to show that there was no truth in some of the allegations made by Dato’ Lingam.

The Commission allowed the application and asked Robert Lazar to attend before the Commission to testify. Datuk Shankar also remarked that the panel observed the manner the last witness volunteered his information and noted the manner in which it was done.

Tun Eusoff Chin was then called as witness. Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked Tun Eusoff Chin to identify some of the photographs.

Tun Eusoff Chin could not recall some of the photographs. He could not remember where the photographs were taken because it was too long ago. To a question in relation to his comments in The Sun newspaper (Exhibit C53), Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that it was his arm on Dato’ Lingam’s shoulder.

Tun Eusoff Chin also confirmed that it was members of his family and Dato’ Lingam’s family shown in a series of pictures marked as Exhibit C62-68. To a question by Ranjit, Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that the photograph shows he was fishing next to Dato’ Lingam and although he could recall the trip he could not recall where it was. Ranjit then suggested that it was in Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown and Tun Eusoff Chin agreed. He also said he could not remember how Dato’ Lingam’s family and his family came to be in the same boat, however, he added that Queenstown after Christmas was very quiet and there was nothing to do as the fare was reasonable, he hired the boat. Tun Eusoff Chin also said that Dato’ Lingam may have been around somewhere.

At this stage, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, Zamani Ibrahim asked if it was necessary to probe this deep. Tan Sri Haidar said that the panel will draw its own conclusions.

Ranjit then queried Tun Eusoff if he and his family walked around and booked the boat, and that if Tun Eusoff was not with Dato’ Lingam “how did you both materialise on the same boat ?”. To this, Tun Eusoff Chin answered that you have to fill up forms etc. and upon filling up the forms, he realised that Dato’ Lingam was behind him, and Dato’ Lingam asked him if he could tag along. The boatman said yes as the boat could take a dozen or so people. He said there was nothing suspicious. It is purely coincidence that Dato’ Lingam was around.

Ranjit then asked the witness about their travel itinerary and whether the itinerary was a private document between Tun Eusoff Chin and the tour company. Tun Eusoff Chin said that the itinerary was kept by the secretary, he did not have time to book, and his secretary called up this lady called Betty Lim who goes about booking travel arrangements for judges, and that Betty Lim planned the whole trip. He then asked “what is so wrong about this” and in any event, there is a circular informing all judges when he was away. He also confirmed that he did not know a lady called Jeyanthi.

To the question of how his itinerary ended up with Jeyanthi, Tun Eusoff said “Ask the agent or Betty. I can’t explain this”. Ranjit then asked Tun Eusoff Chin in relation to the article in The Sun newspaper as to why Tun Eusoff did not mention that he bumped into Dato’ Lingam in New Zealand, took the same bus, shared the same flight and the fishing trip, to which the witness replied that it was up to the press, he can say 1,000 words and they may print a 100 words. Then, Tun Eusoff disagreed that he did not reveal the true extent of his trip which may have put him in a bad light. Tun Eusoff Chin also could not recall his interview by the ACA as it was too long ago. At this stage, Tan Sri Haidar suggested if Ranjit would leave this issue for submissions later, wherein Ranjit answered in the negative as it went to the credibility of the witness. Datuk Shankar then said that Ranjit was not sensitive to “the way the wind is blowing” and that whether his concerns were merely that the meetings were planned or just merely coincidental.

Ranjit stated that this questioning was in relation to the closeness of the relationship between Dato’ Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin. It was a question of misbehaviour arising out of the video clip and suggested that failure to recuse in one case and not another may suggest otherwise. Ranjit then added that there was recusal in Param Cumaraswamy’s case but not the others. Datuk Shankar said that Lazar had previously elicited evidence of failure to recuse and there was no need to get into this further. Tan Sri Steve Shim also echoed this sentiment.

Ranjit then referred Tun Eusoff Chin to the transcript. Tun Eusoff Chin said he did not know what memorandum Dato’ Lingam was referring to. Tun Eusoff Chin also said that after he retired he did not influence the appointment of judges as there was another Chief Justice in place and did not know why Dato’ Lingam would mention his name. Tun Eusoff Chin also denied knowing what Dato’ Lingam meant when he said that Tun Eusoff Chin was trying to put his people but had “run out of soldiers”. Tun Eusoff Chin also denied knowing the basis of various paragraphs of the transcript posed to him.

Tun Eusoff Chin also said that the paragraph referring to Dato’ Lingam firing Tan Sri Vincent Tan at the latter’s house made no sense and asked if Dato’ Lingam took out a gun and fired at him. Then Tun Eusoff Chin again stressed that he did know why Dato’ Lingam chose to mention his name in the fight “for us” (referring to Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Dato’ Lingam). He denied the subsequent paragraphs of the transcript posed to him.

Ranjit then asked about Fairuz on the election petition involving Wee Choo Keong. Tun Eusoff Chin said he was not aware. To the question of who appointed Tun Ahmad Fairuz as election judge, Tun Eusoff Chin said that Ranjit should look at the law. At this stage, Ranjit quoted section 33 of the Election Act which said that Chief Justice appoints election judges. At that stage, Tan Sri Haidar commented that whether it was Chief Justice or Chief Judge of Malaya as he himself had previously appointed election judges. Ranjit then said that he would verify this and revert to the Commission. Tun Eusoff Chin also said that he was not clear why Dato’ Lingam said that he and Dato’ Lingam were very close and put it down to the fact that Dato’ Lingam may have just felt that way, and disagreed that it had anything to do with the New Zealand holiday.

Tun Eusoff Chin also denied that Dato’ Lingam came to his house and had any discussions with him or for that matter that sometime in 1995, Dato’ Lingam wanted to give him a house in Kg. Tunku as a gift. Tun Eusoff Chin also denied that Dato’ Lingam came to his house with files and left a couple of hours later. The witness also denied that he was given a ladies' handbag and wallets and said that these were all lies. He also denied that Dato’ Lingam had ever purchased a handphone for him, but confirmed having a 016 number which he still does. Ranjit then remarked to the panel that his line of questioning was get the ACA to trace the numbers.

Tun Eusoff Chin also said that he had read the transcript for the first time recently and a few days before receiving his summons to appear before this Commission. He also confirmed that he did not have any contact with Dato’ Lingam after his retirement. However, he confirmed that when he was CJ “anyone can approach me. Even the smallest person can do so. I would give them one or two minutes.” He also confirmed that Dato’ Lingam could walk into his room but denied this ever happening. Tun Eusoff Chin could not remember the following number “7763706” which was his office number in 1998. Datuk Shankar wanted clarification wherein Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that he has not seen Thirunama Karasu before but said that he had met one of Dato’ Lingam’s brothers who is a lawyer.

Wee, counsel for Thirunama Karasu, then began cross-examining Tun Eusoff Chin. Tun Eusoff Chin denied visiting Dato’ Lingam when Dato’ Lingam’s wife was ill. He also denied going to Dato’ Lingam’s house to send them off to the USA. The panel then refused to allow Wee to cross examine Tun Eusoff Chin on the MBf case. Tun Eusoff Chin said that he could not remember having a 016 number between 1995-1997 nor did he know that 016 was owned by Mutiara Telecommunications which was connected to Tan Sri Vincent Tan.

During re-examination by Zamani Ibrahim, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, the witness said that he did not have any copies of the photos shown as exhibits as they were taken by Dato’ Lingam’s people. He also did not take any photographs. Tun Eusoff Chin also confirmed that his wife bought a house in 1989 where he is staying now. The witness also stated that there were occasions when his suggestions for confirmation, appointments and promotions of judges were refused by the Prime Minister. He then denied having any contact with the judiciary after his retirement.

Tun Eusoff Chin said that he paid for his New Zealand trip and denied that Dato’ Lingam offered him any job post retirement or sought his assistance to lobby/broker the appointment of judges. The witness was then released.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz called

Tun Ahmad Fairuz was then called to the stand. Upon questioning by DPP Dato’ Azmi Arifin, he answered standard queries pertaining to his appointment as Chief Justice. Tun Fairuz said he knew Dato’ Lingam but only in the capacity of “lawyer-judge”. Then he also said he knew Tan Sri Vincent Tan and said that his contact with the latter came during official state functions and did not go beyond that. Tun Fairuz also said that he knew Tengku Adnan ever since he became Deputy Minister at the Prime Minister's department and met him at official state functions.

In relation to the video clip, Tun Fairuz confirmed that his attention to it was drawn by his ex-secretary, and admitted that he saw the video clip only once. However, he could not identify if the Indian man was Dato’ Lingam as the video was “putus, putus” at which point the video clip was played for him. When asked again, Tun Fairuz repeated that he could not identify the Indian man as Dato’ Lingam but added that he has seen Dato’ Lingam in court and when Dato’ Lingam visited the late Datin Seri Endon. However, he confirmed that they are similarities between the Indian man and Dato’ Lingam.

Tun Fairuz also confirmed that he did not meet Dato’ Lingam, Tan Sri Vincent Tan or Tengku Adnan at any time to discuss his appointment or for that matter any other appointment. He also denied knowledge that Dato’ Lingam would get Tengku Adnan to speak to the Prime Minister. Further, he said that in the video clip the phrase Dato’ Ahmad Fairuz referred to him and confirmed that at the time of the recording, he was the acting President of the Court of Appeal.

Tun Fairuz also did not know if Tan Sri Malik was ever recommended as Chief Justice and denied ever thanking Dato’ Lingam on his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal. The witness also denied asking for any help from Dato’ Lingam, Tengku Adnan or Tan Sri Vincent on his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal or Chief Justice.

To a set of questions by his counsel, Tun Fairuz confirmed that he knew of the video clip on or about 19 September 2007 and after Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim made a public announcement. He also saw it in the evening together with 2 documents from MalaysiaKini (an article and a transcript).

Tun Fairuz’s reaction to the video clip was that he thought it was a “fitnah”, a fabrication and that the person on the other line wanted to impress the person he was talking to when the video was taken. He confirmed that he took further action by drafting 3 letters to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department.

Tun Fairuz said he did so because they were the representatives of the Executive and that since he was the head of the Judiciary, he had to explain the allegations made against him. Asked why he used “VK Lingam” when writing to the PM, DPM and Minister, he said that he could not identify who the person was in the video. He also said that in the said letters, it was all allegations and that his name was not mentioned nor was his voice heard on the other line. Then Tun Fairuz said he did not make a police report or file a defamation suit because the MalaysiaKini reports already stated that a report to the ACA and Bar Council would be made and secondly, that his name was not mentioned as it only said senior Judge.

He added that he was not sure who defamed him and that there was already a police investigation in place. Tun Fairuz said his letters to the Executive was on a need to know basis and refrained from commenting to any newspapers as he did not want to jeopardise the investigations. He also confirmed that he did not know Dato’ Lingam’s telephone number, nor did he ever give it to him, nor did he invite him to his Hari Raya open house, nor did he know where Dato’ Lingam lives.

He said he had no reason to call Dato’ Lingam. He repeated the same when asked about Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan, other than knowing them from official state functions. Tun Fairuz confirmed that he knew Tun Eusoff Chin as Tun Eusoff Chin was his boss, and he had to respect him as his boss. The witness denied receiving any memo from any party.

To a question whether he knew someone called Wee Choo Keong, he said he knew Wee from a case in 1995 and as far as he is concerned, he was appointed as an election judge by the then CJM Tan Sri Anuar. He then confirmed that he made his decision on Wee’s election petition based on facts and law and repeated that Dato’ Lingam may have implicated him simply because he wanted to impress the persons in the video clip.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz confirmed he did not know if anyone ever lobbied for his appointment or promotion.

Proceedings came to an end at 5.05pm.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed