The Malaysian Bar - Commission of Inquiry does not make legal decisions, rule top judges

Home

News

Legal/General News

Commission of Inquiry does not make legal decisions, rule top judges

Wednesday, 14 September 2011 12:35pm

©The Star (Used by permission)
by M. MAGESWARI

PUTRAJAYA: The findings of the Commission of Inquiry is not reviewable, the Federal Court ruled in a landmark judgment.

This is the first time that the country’s apex court has answered a question on whether the findings of a Commission of Inquiry is reviewable under the Rules of the High Court 1980.

Yesterday, the Federal Court held that the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the controversial V.K. Lingam videoclip could not be reviewed, saying the commissioners had merely made findings and not a decision.

Justice Raus Sharif, who is the newly-appointed Court of Appeal president, said the three-man panel were of the view that the Commission was not a decision-making body.

He said the Commission “merely investigates and does not decide.”

“A closer look at the Commission’s report will reveal that it does not make a legal decision. The report consists of findings and recommendations of the Commission on five terms of reference entrusted to them.

“Being mere findings and recommendations, it does not bind the respondents (Lingam and two former Chief Justices), not even the Government,” Justice Raus said.

Federal Court judge Justice Zul-kefli Ahmad Makinudin, who is now the newly-appointed Chief Judge of Malaya, chaired the three-man panel. With them was Federal Court judge Justice Abdull Hamid Embong.

Justice Raus said only a person adversely affected by the decision of a public authority shall be entitled to make an application for a judicial review.

He said Lingam’s legal rights and the benefits enjoyed by former Chief Justices Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin – the three respondents – were not directly affected.

Besides that, Justice Raus said there was a strong policy consideration as it was against public interest to allow the findings of the Commission to be challenged in court.

Therefore, Justice Raus said the Bench allowed three separate appeals by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on behalf of the commissioners.

Justice Zulkefli said it did not make any order as to costs due to public interest.

The appeals were against the decision of the Court of Appeal on Aug 28 last year which, in a majority decision, allowed Lingam and two others to appeal against the High Court’s decision to refuse their applications for leave for a judicial review.

Among others, the findings of the Commission, in its report dated May 9, 2008, said the video clip was authentic and that it was Lingam who was in a telephone conversation with Ahmad Fairuz.

Set as favourite

Email This