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

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Beh Lih Yi

• Fact-finding into Lingam tape

An opposition party has given yet another reason why former chief judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor should not head the three-man panel probing the authenticity of the ‘Lingam tape’.

This time the reason was based on an “unusual ruling” in 2000 which Haidar - as then court of appeal judge - had ruled in favour of senior lawyer VK Lingam in a defamation case.

The case was highlighted by PKR vice-president R Sivarasa at a press conference at the party headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today. A copy of his statement was distributed to the media.

In the 2000 case, the Court of Appeal had struck off Asian Wall Street Journal journalist Raphael Pura’s application to amend his statement of defence to add in two allegations made against Lingam.

At the time, Pura was embroiled in a defamation suit by Insas Bhd for publishing allegations of corruptions in the Malaysian judiciary in connection with the infamous Ayer Molek case.

Lingam appeared for Insas in the case.

Before the trial kicked off, Pura had intended to amend his statement of defence to strengthen his defence by adding in two arguments over Lingam’s questionable links with the judiciary.

There were allegations that Lingam had written part of a judgment in a defamation case of tycoon Vincent Tan suing journalist MGG Pillai, where Lingam was representing Tan, and the infamous photos showing the lawyer holidaying with then chief justice Eusoff Chin overseas.

‘Unusual ruling’

Pura’s application was rejected at the High Court and the three-man panel at the Court of Appeal - which include Haidar - upheld the lower court’s decision unanimously.

The two others sitting on the panel included Justice Denis JF Ong and current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim. The judgment was delivered by Haidar then.

Describing the ruling as “unusual”, Sivarasa said Pura’s application was merely to provide justification to substantiate the article on corruption in the judiciary.

“The implications were serious because a party being sued was now being prevented from presenting his defence in full,” said the politician-lawyer in his statement.

“It was clear to many observers that this ruling was delivered to prevent witnesses from taking the stand to present their evidence on these shocking allegations,” he added.

On that note, Sivarasa asked: “How can he (Haidar) now sit on this panel looking at the implications on the ruling in this case (Insas v Pura)?”

He reiterated the need to set up a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations raised in the clip, where Lingam was allegedly brokering the appointment of judges with Ahmad Fairuz, who was the chief judge of Malaya when the clip was said to be recorded in 2002.

PKR has earlier questioned Haidar’s appointment to the panel based on his controversial role in the 1988 judicial crisis that led to the sacking of Salleh Abas as the lord president.

The government-appointed panel met for the first time yesterday and has admitted it is powerless to compel witnesses to come forward or to extend protection for them.

The two others sitting on the panel include former court of appeal judge Mahadev Shankar and National Service Training Council chairperson Lee Lam Thye.

Fact-finding into Lingam tape
Soon Li Tsin

While the three-man panel led by former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor has restricted itself to probing only the authenticity of the infamous VK Lingam tape, Malaysiakini examines the ‘facts’ contained in the eight-minute conversation.

In the grainy video clip, senior lawyer Lingam was talking to purportedly Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim on his mobile telephone. The video is believed to be taken in 2002.

Below is a compilation of the facts established from various sources with a side-by-side comparison to parts of Lingam’s conversation with Ahmad Fairuz.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed