|
by Lim Kit Siang
 Gani's outrageous comments of Lingam Tape as a "monologue" which
discloses no criminal offence raises important questions of his understanding of
and commitment to judicial independence, integrity and accountability as well as
his fitness to continue as Attorney-General
The comments by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that "no criminal
offence appears to have been committed" in the
Lingam Tape and that senior
lawyer V.K.Lingam "was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear
who he was talking to" (New Straits Times) were most outrageous and raise
important questions, viz:
• his understanding of and commitment to judicial independence, integrity
and accountability; and
• his fitness to continue as Attorney-General.
How can the chief legal officer of the government try to minimize the gravity of
the judicial misconduct exposed by the Lingam Tape and shirk off his
responsibility by claiming that Lingam was in a monologue as "There is no clear
reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer", when Anwar Ibrahim's
allegation that Lingam was talking to Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh
Abdul Halim sometime in 2002 when he was Chief Judge of Malaya was corroborated
by the contents of the conversation?
Forty-eight hours have passed and neither Ahmad Fairuz nor Lingam had denied
that there was such a telephone conversation between them, which would be the
first reaction of anyone to a doctored video clip.
Ahmad Fairuz was contacted the same afternoon of Wednesday when Anwar made
public the video recording, but his personal assistant relayed the message that
the Chief Justice wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything. But
Ahmad Fairuz had been in ex communicado in the past two days, although he would
have no difficulty in accessing it on the Internet, as it was put up on
Malaysiakini almost instantly the same day (recording over 4,000 hits since), as
well as on many blogs and the Bar Council website. One Youtube site which
uploaded the clip registered 23,150 hits in one day.
The silence of Lingam cannot be explained by the claim that he is overseas,
particularly in the present era of 24/7 and instant communications when
information travels at the speed of light and denials could be made instantly
from any part of the globe.
It is also most noteworthy that Gani had not challenged the authenticity of the
video recording of the telephone conversation.
From the contents, the conversation would probably be January 2002 for the
following reasons:
• Ahmad Fairuz was referred to as "Datuk" and there was talk of getting a
"Tan Sri"-ship for him the same year. Ahmad Fairuz was awarded the Panglima
Setia Mahkota (P.S.M) by the Yang di Pertuan Agong during the King's birthday in
June 2002, making him a Tan Sri.
• There was reference of making "Datuk Heliliah, Datuk Ramli and Datuk
Maroop" as judges – on 8th February 2002, Datuk Heliliah Mohd Yusuf, former
Solicitor-General, Datuk Ramly Ali, a former Chief Registrar and Datuk Ahmad
Maarop, a former Commissioner of Law Revision, received their letters of
appointment as High Court judges from the Yang di Pertuan Agong. Their
appointments were from Feb. 1, 2002.
• There was reference that "in three months time" Ahmad Fairuz would be
made President of Court of Appeal and "six months time" he was going to be Chief
Justice - Ahmad Fairuz was sworn in as President, Court of Appeal on Dec. 1,
2002 and appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia on March 17, 2003.
When Gani said that "no criminal offence appears to have been committed' in the
Lingam Tape, may be he should explain what crimes were committed by Tun Salleh
Abas to be sacked as Lord President and by Datuk Seri George Seah and the late
Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh to be dismissed as Supreme Court judges in the
dark days of Malaysian judiciary in 1988?
Five charge, running into 12 sheets of paper and nearly 1,700 words were
levelled against Salleh Abas. Can Gani state what were the charges against
Salleh in the shameful travesty of justice which precipitated the fall from
grace of the Malaysian judiciary which could be termed "criminal"?
What is mind-boggling is that the Attorney-General, who had clearly viewed the
Lingam Tape, should be so complacent as to find nothing improper or offensive in
it and cannot see the grave judicial misconduct crying out for attention and
which have plunged the country into the latest chapter of a long catalogue of
crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the past two decades since the 1988
Judicial Onslaught.
How is it that Malaysia, which claims to want to be a first-world nation to face
up to the challenges of globalization, is having an Attorney-General who seems
to be oblivious of the importance of the principles of judicial independence,
integrity and accountability and the various international statements and
declarations on them, such as:
(1) The Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in
the LAWASIA Region 1995 which among other things declared:
• Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the
Judiciary by avoiding impropriety in all their activities.
• To enable the Judiciary to achieve its objectives and
perform its functions, it is essential that judges be chosen on the basis of
proven competence, integrity and independence.
(2) The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002 which states, among other
things:
• A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above
reproach in the view of a reasonable observer.
• The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the
people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.
If the Attorney-General assumes the stance that no criminal offence is disclosed
in the Lingam Tape and that it was only a monologue of Lingam, totally
disregarding the fact that it has done more than any other event in the
four-year Abdullah premiership to destroy the myth that the country is making
progress towards a system of justice where there is a truly independent
judiciary and a just rule of law, how can Malaysians expect the Prime Minister
to get proper and quality legal advice from the chief legal officer of the
government on what he should do for the good of the country and future
generations?
Instead of one scandal over the Lingam Tape, is the country getting a double
whammy with another value-added scandal of an Attorney-General who refuses to
see or lift his finger to save the country from the latest crisis of confidence
in the judiciary in the country?
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 304/2008 : Invitation - HR Debate 2008
Strange that the lead event releasing the clip received less coverage than responses to it (http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/09/lameass_press.php). Malaysiakini and this site must be commended for the relentless and brave pursuit in continuing public discussion on this issue of grave purport.
Do we do something about it?
If the Bar does not rise and show its hand, the previously reckoned state of affairs now coming to light in audio and visual would continue to cripple our machinery of justice.
Remember when we moved previously in ’88 and subsequently over similar complaints of unjustified judicial infiltration? Hasten no inconsistency.
Why should we assume the position?
Unfortunate that judges, politicians, well-known personalities and cases are named. Suspicions paint the entire Judiciary.
Remember the incorruptible, principled and blameless judges who currently sit in judgment? We must speak for them.
And we have been entrusted with duties under the LPA. Lest we fail.
Who will do it if not us?
The Bar’s incessant calls for an independent judicial appointments commission have never been so strongly endorsed, and ratified now.
Remember the ‘nude-squat’ clip which necessitated a Royal Commission? Deserve no less.
What now?
EGM calling for:
> a full investigation by a Royal Commission including reviewing cases and judgments
> an independent judicial appointments commission to be established
> a petition be handed over to the Conference of Rulers and PM for action
> a protest march be held
> a moratorium of court appearances for 1 month
Edmund Bon