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

Robert Lazar, lead counsel for the Malaysian Bar

• Picture Gallery: Eusoff-Lingam NZ Trip
• Bar barred from pursuing alleged case fixing

KUALA LUMPUR: The second session of the proceedings began at 2.03pm with Tan Sri Haidar inquiring as to the Malaysian Bar’s stand on the Commission's ruling earlier today, that the evidence as to fixing of cases was outside the terms of reference of the Commission. (Please click here to take part in the polls.)

Robert Lazar, lead counsel for the Malaysian Bar, having taken instructions, informed the Commissioners that there was a need to seek clarification on the said ruling.

Lazar continued by saying that the Bar takes the position that the terms of reference include inquiring into the fixing of cases and that the effect of the ruling would restrict the questioning of witnesses on the Insas and Ayer Molek cases.

Tan Sri Haidar in response said that the Commission is tasked with inquiring into the the video clip and the characters involved in the brokering of judicial appointments and added “otherwise, we would be going on a frolic of our own”. Tan Sri Haidar added firmly that the Commission would stick to its ruling.

Lead counsel for the Bar then referred to a number of extracts in the transcript of the conversations in the video clip, which he said all refer to the fixing of cases. He said that if the ruling is confined to the issue of the appointment of judges, then that would mean that there can be no questioning of witnesses on the said extracts. After quickly conferring with the other Commissioners, Tan Sri Haidar announces that they will take a short break to consider the point raised by Lazar.

Proceedings resumed after about half an hour and Datuk Shankar, speaking for the other Commissioners on the point raised by Lazar said that the Commission is of the view that the Bar and other parties are entitled to ask questions in respect of the said extracts but the objective of the questions must not be related to the fixing of cases but that they were involved in the brokering or appointment of judges at the time of the video clip.

Proceedings then continued with Dato' VK Lingam once again taking the witness stand and Lazar continuing from where he left off. Counsel for the Bar questioned Lingam as to “lawyers' gossip” that Lingam had heard about the people earmarked for elevation and judicial appointments, namely, Datuk Helilah, Dato Ramly and Dato’ Maarop, Dr. Andrew Chew and Zainuddin Ismail.

Lazar, asked if Dato' Lingam knew who Zainuddin Ismail and Andrew Chew were and Dato' Lingam answered that he did not and that they were just names to him. When asked if he knew who Datuk Helilah was, Lingam said “I don’t know her personally” but subsequently confirmed that he knew that she was previously the Solicitor General. Lazar then asked if Dato' Lingam knew that Dr. Chew was a legal practitioner from Sarawak, to which Lingam replied that he did and that he had read a book by Dr. Chew. When asked whether he knew that Zainuddin Ismail was once the chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, Dato' Lingam said that he did not know that. Dato' Lingam however, confirmed that he knew that Dato’ Ramly and Dato’ Maarop were Judicial Commissioners.

Lazar, referring to a passage in the video clip transcript, then proceeded to enquire as to whether the reference to “my lawyer Thayalan” by the Indian man in the video clip was a reference to the same Thayalan who worked as a legal assistant for Dato' Lingam. Dato' Lingam answered in the affirmative.

Counsel then asked if Dato' Lingam knew a lawyer by the name of Anand (a name also mentioned by the Indian man in the video clip), to which Dato' Lingam replied “I know a lawyer named Anand Ponnudurai and a few other people who go by that name” and stated that he did not specifically know the Anand that Lazar was referring to.

Dato' Lingam was then asked if he is aware of a Malaysian Bar publication called “Insaf” and whether he reads it. To which Dato' Lingam replied “I read it when I have the time because there is a lot of rubbish in there”. When asked if he knew of an article in Insaf by Raja Aziz Addruse criticising the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Dato' Lingam replied that he did not.

Lazar then referred to a passage in the video clip transcript which reads “Ha, it seems that they are going to organise a campaign to run you down. But you just keep quiet don’t say anything. Even the press asked, you said I leave it to God, that’s all. Don’t say. I really like your message. You said you work very hard, what can I do? I leave it to God. That’s the best answer datuk that you can ever give” He then referred to an article in The Sunday Star in which Tun Ahmad Fairuz, in response to the Raja Aziz’ criticism of his appointment as Chief Judge of Malaya, was quoted as saying, “what can I do, this is a democratic country. I thank God for my appointment and I will work hard”. When asked if he was aware of this article in The Star, Dato' Lingam replied that he was.

At one point during the proceedings , Lazar asked Dato' Lingam “some of your answers were that that you may have had too much to drink. When you say you had too much to drink, was it in reference to what you saw in the clip?” Dato' Lingam responded to this in the affirmative and Lazar then asked if the person in the clip was slurring and whether his movement was indicative that he was drunk. Dato' Lingam’s answer to this was that there was slurring towards the end and the movements were not steady and “dancing around”. Tan Sri Haidar then interjected “but I dance differently” and the courtroom broke into laughter.

Although pressed by Lazar, Dato' Lingam was adamant that until his experts verify that it was indeed him in the video clip, he will not make the concession.

After Lazar had finished with his questions, he passed the baton on to Ranjit Singh who proceeded to question Dato' Lingam on his trip to New Zealand and the photographs of Dato' Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin and their respective families. Ranjit adduced evidence of the photographs to show that the photographs were taken on two separate occasions in different locations in New Zealand. Dato' Lingam at one point insisted that the negatives of the photographs must be produced. Ranjit informed the Commissioners that the negatives were in the possession of one Datuk Shafee, who is a legal practitioner and a Suhakam Commissioner. Ranjit then continued with his questioning of the witness and in referring to one of the photographs asked if the witness knew where in New Zealand was the photograph taken. Dato' Lingam said he did not know. Ranjit offered “Could it be a place called Lake Wakatipu? In response, Dato' Lingam said that he had never heard of such a name and the photograph looks like it may have been taken in Papua New Guinea. To which, Ranjit asked if Dato' Lingam was suggesting that he had also visited Papua New Guinea with Tun Eusofff Chin. Dato' Lingam quickly replied in the negative.

Towards the end of his questioning, Ranjit asked “You said that you had one too many (referring to the alcohol that Dato' Lingam had purportedly consumed) and when you do, you talk rubbish. Why did you discuss the subject of what appears to be the brokering and appointment of judges (to Loh Mui Fah). Dato' Lingam’s answer to this was: “This is my house, my castle. I can say whatever I want” and added that he was bragging to Loh and that it was just “bullshit”.

After the conclusion of questioning by counsel, Datuk Shankar jumped in and asked Dato' Lingam “You don’t dispute that you are the person in the photographs that were adduced but in relation to video clip you say that it looks like you and it sounds like you. You said that you don’t want to say that it 100% you. How many percent then?” In the midst of laughter, Dato' Lingam replied that he did not wish to get into a mathematical argument with the Commissioner.

With that, the Commissioners decided to adjourn for the day and to resume with submissions by Wee Choo Keong and Puravalen on the relevance of testimony by Wee’s client, Thirunama on the following day.

However, just as everyone was getting ready to stand, Tan Sri Haidar brought up the issue of Wee’s remarks to the press on the very same issue of the relevance of his client’s testimony. Wee tried to explain his conduct but seeing that Tan Sri Haidar was not satisfied with his answer, he graciously apologised to the Commissioners following which, the policeman on duty bellowed “Court bangun”.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed