•
Karpal makes shock application for Haidar's discharge
•
Commission removes Anwar's right to be represented
•
ISA detainee among four new witnesses
•
Haidar refuses to disqualify himself
•
Lawyers walk out from inquiry
KUALA LUMPUR: Day 14 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the V.K. Lingam
Video Clip started at 2.37 p.m.
Dato’ Nordin informed the Commission that although proceedings were supposed to
continue with the evidence of Thirunama Karasu, M. Puravalen had an application
to make. Puravalen then stood up and introduced Karpal Singh as lead counsel for
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s team and that he appeared together with S.N. Nair,
Ram Karpal, Sangeet Kaur Deo, Ranee Sreedharan and Nicholas Netto.
Karpal Singh then informed the Commission that he was making an application to
disqualify Tan Sri Haidar. The reason, he said, was a serious one – Tan Sri
Haidar’s sister was married to the late brother of Tun Ahmad Fairuz. He
submitted that the relationship ought to have been disclosed at the very outset
and it was unethical for a judge, and the same principle applies to members of
the Commission, not to have disclosed this fact.
Tan Sri Haidar: The facts are correct. He died 30 years ago.
Karpal: It makes no difference. The fact of the relationship is what is
important and should have been disclosed.
Tan Sri Haidar: The relationship had been terminated 30 years ago. Please
show me the authorities.
Karpal then went through the authorities including the case of Allied Capital.
He then said that this is a Royal Commission of Inquiry and nothing should be
hidden. He said he wished to know why this was not disclosed. He said that Tun
Ahmad Fairuz is a vital witness to these proceedings. After citing Pinochet’s
case, Karpal said that there is more than suspicion here and that it is a
real likelihood of bias and this should have been disclosed.
Robert Lazar then addressed the Commission and said that he was not aware such
an application was being made and that he would need to confer with certain
other counsel and requested a short break.
Kamarul Hisham, counsel for Tun Ahmad Fairuz, said that he
also had no inkling of such an application and he wished to be heard on this and
be given time for his client to respond.
Datuk Shankar said that the sole ground being canvassed was the marital
relationship between Tan Sri Haidar’s sister and Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s late brother
and that relationship was terminated by divine intervention 30 years ago. He
said he could not see how Tun Ahmad Fairuz could assist the Commission on this
point. And he said the law in this area had also been addressed extensively.
Before the short break was taken, Tan Sri Haidar mentioned that counsel for
SUARAM and HAKAM had come to see him yesterday and he heard them in the presence
of the other Commissioners. He said what they spoke about was a similar point.
After the short break, Robert Lazar said that the Malaysian Bar’s position is no
different from the position they had taken in respect of the application to
recuse Tan Sri Haidar for being a trustee of the Perdana Foundation. He said
that it is a question of the degree of interaction. He said that he did not know
the degree of interaction, e.g. whether there were any children from this
marriage and to what extent Tan Sri Haidar would have come into contact with Tun
Ahmad Fairuz as a result of the marriage. Robert also said that it would have
been far more prudent if Tan Sri Haidar had disclosed this fact right at the
outset. He ended by saying that based on what was known at this stage, he did
not believe there was sufficient cause to recuse.
Kamarul Hisham then informed the Commission that he had contacted his client and
was informed that the relationship ended in 1973 and that they had one daughter
as a result of that marriage and accordingly Tan Sri Haidar and Tun Ahmad Fairuz
shared a niece from that marriage. He said that given that Karpal has now
brought this matter to public knowledge, the circumstances are not analogous to
that in Pinochet’s case. He said that the relationship was too remote and
too tenuous.
Karpal expressed his surprise that the Commission had met counsel for SUARAM and
HAKAM without the presence of the other parties and enquired why this was done.
Tan Sri Haidar said that they wanted to see him and that he had seen them in the
presence of the other Commissioners and the DPP. Karpal continued by saying that
the relationship outlasted death and now there was a niece from that marriage.
Tan Sri Haidar then said “In my honest view, the marriage had been terminated
and I hardly had any contact with Tun Ahmad Fairuz and his family other than the
time we were together on the Bench. I am quite clear in my conscience that I see
no valid grounds to recuse myself and the application is dismissed”.
Tan Sri Steve Shim then read out the Ruling made by the Commissioners regarding
the statements made by ALIRAN and Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which the Commission
regarded as being on the verge of contempt. He said that as there had been no
apology or retraction forthcoming and given their intransigence, they should not
be allowed to participate further in the proceedings. He said the Commission was
leaving it open as to whether any penal consequences would be taken later.
Karpal then made an application for M. Manoharan to be subpoenaed to appear
before the Commission to address the allegations made by Dato’ VK Lingam against
him during these proceedings. The application was allowed by the Commission to
the extent of evidence to rebut that stated by Dato’ Lingam.
Datuk Shankar then remarked that Puravalen and his team could remain as
bystanders but Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim had forfeited his right to participate
in the proceedings.
Puravalen then said that as his last act as counsel for Dato
Seri Anwar Ibrahim, he wishes to inform the Commission that he had conveyed the
earlier ruling of the Commission to Nahendran Navaratnam, counsel for Dato’
Murad Khalid, and Nahendran Navaratnam had asked him to deliver a written
response to the Commission.
After reading the written response, Datuk Shankar remarked that he understands
this to mean that the person did not want to volunteer information and is not
prepared to give evidence without first being subpoenaed. At this point, Datuk
Shankar thanked Puravalen for his services and said that he had been most
helpful. Puravalen and his team then left the courtroom.
Robert Lazar then said that he believed that it was not right that a person, who
is entitled to be represented in these proceedings by virtue of section 18 of
the Commission of Enquiry Act and had been recognised as such by the Commission,
should then have the right to participate and the right to counsel taken away.
He said that if an act of contempt had been committed, the power of the
Commission is laid out in sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act. He said that the
procedure laid out therein had not been followed.
Tan Sri Steve Shim: We are not citing him for contempt. But I think we
have the power to exclude that person from further participation.
Robert Lazar: The right to participate cannot be withdrawn.
Tan Sri Steve Shim: With respect, we disagree.
Datuk Shankar: Where a person has impugned the very basis of the
Commission, what right does he have to remain here? We think he has forfeited
his right to participate and we are not going to hear him until he makes amends.
Before proceedings continued with the evidence of Thirunama Karasu, counsel for
Tun Eusoff Chin addressed the Commission about the remarks made by Dato’ Shafee
about Datuk KL Rekhraj. He said that he had contacted the retired Judge and
would like to convey that he states that he never telephoned Dato’ Shafee to
apologise and he made the police report on the advice of the then Attorney
General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. Dato’ Shafee responded by saying that the
Commission should invite Datuk KL Rekhraj to give evidence to the Commission.
Datuk Shankar said that only after Dato’ Shafee had given evidence at length
would Datuk KL Rekhraj know what to do.
Thirunama then continued giving evidence. To questions by Christopher Leong,
counsel for the Malaysian Bar, the witness said when he drove Dato’ Lingam to
meet Tun Eusoff Chin, he was instructed by Dato’ Lingam not to wait outside Tun
Eusoff Chin’s house as he did not want him to hear their conversation. He said
he was told not to park outside as somebody might see. He confirmed the meetings
were always late at night and he used different cars.
He confirmed that he knew Dato’ Lingam’s mobile phone number in 1994–1996 but
did not know the number of his mobile phone in 2001. He said that his siblings
and some of the staff would also know the number. He said that Dato’ Lingam
would bring thick files when he went to see Tun Eusoff Chin but could not
describe the files. He did confirm that the files were similar to the ones he
had seen in Dato’ Lingam’s office. He said he did not know the contents of the
files. He said that Dato’ Lingam only told him the purpose of his visits to Tun
Eusoff Chin’s house on 2 occasions – “One was Ayer Molek, One was
Insas”.
He confirmed that he had accompanied Dato’ Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin to view a
house and that he was the one who kept the keys to this house. He said that, to
the best of his knowledge, Dato’ Lingam had never rented the house out and it
was not shown to anyone else. He said Dato’ Lingam wanted to give the house to
Tun Eusoff Chin but did not know why. He said that he had viewed other
properties with Dato’ Lingam and was told by Dato’ Lingam that they were looking
for 2 plots of land for Tun Eusoff Chin. He said they viewed one house in Jalan
7/12 Kelana Jaya and one house in University Gardens. He confirmed that he had
informed the ACA about this in his statement in March 1998.
The witness confirmed that he was given money by Dato’ Lingam to purchase mobile
phones from Mutiara Telecommunications for Tun Eusoff Chin. He said that he
registered the phones and had records of the phone numbers. He said he noted
down the numbers in his black notebook. He said he gave the notebook to the ACA
in March 1998. He said he wrote things down in his notebook because he was very
frightened of his brother and he wrote it down in case he forgot what he was
asked to do.
Datuk Shankar then said that proceedings would have to continue at the next
session as it was 4.30 p.m. Proceedings are to continue after the festive
holidays and would recommence on Tuesday 12th February 2008.