MORE PICS – Day 10 & 9 RCI – Eusoff Chin Denies Lingam’s Gifts; Lingam: Lazar aspired to be Appeal Court Judge; Anwar & Company No need to testify
Relationship With Lingam One Of Judge And Lawyer, Says Ahmad Fairuz
ABOVE: Ahmad Fairus spotted on Day 10 RCI testified video clip purportedly linking his name in the appointment of judges was a slander but he did not do anything to clear his name.Relationship With Lingam One Of Judge And Lawyer
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 28 (Bernama) -- Former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim testifying today before the Royal Commission Inquiry into a controversial video clip about alleged judicial corruption, said his relationship Datuk V.K.Lingam was one of judge and lawyer.
Ahmad Fairuz, 66, said he came to know Lingam when the latter appeared before him in court cases. Ahmad Fairuz said he also knew corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (since he was appointed Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department) but contact with them was limited to official functions.
Questioned by Datuk Azmi Ariffin, the head of the commercial crime division in the Attorney-General's Chambers, who is assisting the inquiry, Ahmad Fairuz said he could not be sure if the man talking in the tape was Lingam as he had only met the latter a few times in court and once at the residence of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
However, Ahmad Fairuz agreed that the man looked like Lingam.
Questioned further by Azmi, Ahmad Fairuz denied that there had been a conspiracy between him, Lingam, Tengku Adnan and Vincent Tan to ensure he was promoted as the Federal Court president and thereafter Chief Justice.
Asked by Azmi, if he knew the subject matter of the video clip, Ahmad Fairuz said he was not able to tell as the conversation kept breaking.He said he was shown the video clip by his former secretary on Nov 11 last year. Ahmad Fairuz retired as Chief Justice on
He was then shown the video-clip, the sixth time it was presented in the course of the inquiry.
When Azmi resumed questioning him, Ahmad Fairuz said that he had never telephoned Lingam on
Azmi: Did you at any time ask for help from Tengku Adnan and Vincent Tan through Lingam to confirm your promotion as Federal Court president?
Ahmad Fairuz: Never.
Azmi: Did you at anytime telephone Lingam to thank him because you were promoted as Chief Judge of
Ahmad Fairuz: Never and the fact is not correct.
On the part in the clip where it was mentioned Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad, who was then Federal Court president, would be passed over for the Chief Justice's post as the latter was anti-Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (the prime minister then), Ahmad Fairuz replied he did not know.
To a question by his counsel Salehuddin Saidin, he stressed that he did not have Lingam's telephone number and vice versa.
Salehuddin: Was it you who was talking to the Indian man (in the clip)?
Ahmad Fairuz: No.
Salehuddin: As such, the claim by the man that he was talking to you is not true?
Ahmad Fairuz: Yes.
On a separate issue, Ahmad Fairuz said that he was appointed by Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin (the Chief Judge of
Wee is also involved in the inquiry and is representing Lingam's younger brother, V.K.Thirunama.
Questioned further by Salehuddin,Ahmad Fairuz said he made the decision to reject the petition by Wee based on the facts and the law.= == = == = ==
Allegations Made After I Failed To Give Him Bungalow, Says Lingam
He said that when he did not give Thirunama a bungalow, a Mercedez Benz car, a lot of money and educate his children, the latter threatened to make his life miserable and said that he had lodged two police reports with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).
Lingam said Thirunama's counsel, M.Manoharan, called him and told him that Thirunama had lodged two police reports and asked him whether he wanted to pay the money to his brother. He did not want to pay because all the allegations made by Thirunama were not true and the ACA had already settled the investigation, he said, adding: "My brother, Thirunama, had physic mental problem." Questioned by counsel Wee Choo Keong, for Thirunama, Lingam stressed that he bought a house in Seapark for RM21,000 in 1972 and all his siblings lived together. He said Thirunama worked for him from February to June 1996 as an administrative worker and his job was to photocopy documents and assist in binding documents.
"He only worked for two hours a day. He came in about and left within two hours. He did not work full time because he had to take care of his two children who had asthmatha and his wife worked as an operator in a
At this juncture, commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor told Wee to confine his questions to the relevant portion allowed by the commission but Wee persisted and commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar had to remind him not to ask irrelevant questions.
When Wee still asked irrelevant questions after a 10-minute break, Shankar said he would take over the questioning regarding the portion in the statement made by Thirunama. Referred to the statement that he and Thirunama went to former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin's house in early 1995 to send a few files, Lingam said it was not true.
He also denied the part which said that that he intended to purchase a house for Eusoff in October 1995. He said it was also not true that he had instructed Thirunama to deliver to Eusoff a briefcase with a brown envelope in it, a ladies handbag and a man wallet, all of which were fr om
Lingam was also not sure that between January and March 1996, he had given ThirunamaRanjit Singh on whether he or his wife owned a BMW car with plate number WDN 788 and whether he knew RM1,200 to purchase a handphone from Mutiara Telecommunication in Jalan Sultan Ismail for Eusoff. He also answered in the negative to questions by Malaysian Bar representative that Eusoff or any Eusoff family member was the owner of the car.
Conversation In Video Clip Is A Slander, Says Fairuz
Former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim described the conversation in the video clip purportedly linking his name in the appointment of judges was a slander. Ahmad Fairuz, who testified before the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the controversial video clip, said he did not know why the man in the video clip, who was said to be lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam, had linked his name in the conversation and slandered him.
"I don't know why he (Lingam) did it, may be he was merely trying to impress other people there that he knew the prime minister and other dignitaries, and that he knew the Chief Judge of
Ahmad Fairuz said he first came to know about the video clip through his former secretary on the same day that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made the announcement to expose the video clip on Nov 19, last year. He said that in the afternoon of that day (Nov 19), his former secretary had given him two articles obtained from the Malaysiakini website entitled "Video Link CJ To Judge Fixing Scandal" and "Transcript Of Lingam Conversation With Ahmad Fairuz".
When questioned by Salehuddin whether he had taken any action after reading the articles and transcript, Ahmad Fairuz said he had read the two documents repeatedly and on the following day, he had drafted a letter addressed to the prime minister, deputy prime minister and minister in the prime minister's department (Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz) to explain his views and position on the video clip. "I chose to send a letter to the three individuals as they were members of the Executive Body where I, as head of the Judiciary, must inform the Executive Body on the allegations against me and what my stand was."
Ahmad Fairuz was later shown the letters he had sent to the prime minister, deputy prime minister and minister in the prime minister's department (all three letters carried the same contents and had the Malaysiakini articles and transcripts attached) which among others stated "Following is my explanation, I had never talked to "V.K Lingam".
Replying to Salehuddin's question why he wrote the name Lingam within inverted commas, Ahmad Fairuz said it was because he was not sure who was talking on the telephone in the video clip and he could not see clearly (the person in the video clip) at that time. "In my explanation, I had also stated that I had never made such conversation. The contents in the transcript of the conversation were allegations that Lingam was talking to me on the topic, and I'm saying that they were all untrue. "The recording of the conversation in the video clip was merely a monologue because my voice was not heard in the conversation and only Lingam's voice was heard," he said. Ahmad Fairuz said that in his explanation in the letter, he said there were no indications that could link him to the video clip because his name was not mentioned as the other party speaking to Lingam on the telephone.
Asked by Salehuddin whether it had occurred to him to lodge a police report or to take legal action for slander, Ahmad Fairuz said: "I had never thought of doing so because the Malaysiakini article had already mentioned that there was a party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) which would lodge a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and also lodge a complaint with the Bar Council. "In the newspapers published subsequently, no reference was made to my name but only that of Lingam who was reported to be conversing with a senior judge, therefore, if I were to lodge a police report, it would be misconstrued that I was the senior judge.
"I did not take any legal action for libel because I was not certain who was slandering me and that the ACA was also carrying out an investigation. So, it was not nice for me to take such action," he said.
Ahmad Fairuz said he would only take legal action after he knew for certain who was slandering him. Responding to another question by Salehuddin whether the media had contacted him regarding the video clip, Ahmad Fairuz said he had been informed by his former secretary that there were people from the media who had tried to get his comments but he did not want to comment because an investigation would be carried out. Asked by Salehuddin whether he had contacted Lingam to express his dissatisfaction on the video clip and transcript, Ahmad Fairuz said: "I did not. Otherwise other slanders would crop up. I did not want to be accused of persuading him (Lingam) to withdraw the allegations in the video clip. As the chief justice, I had no reason to contact him."
Meanwhile, Ahmad Fairuz also refuted several sections in the conversation in the video clip which linked his name. Among others, Ahmad Fairuz denied that he was former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin's man. Ahmad Fairuz also refuted the conversation in the video clip which showed that the man who was said to be Lingam had told businessman Loh Mui Fah, that he (Lingam) was speaking to Ahmad Fairuz who was then chief judge of
Ahmad Fairuz: It was a fabrication
R. Surenthira Kumar and Llew-Ann Phang
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 28, 2008): Former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim told the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the controversial video clip today that he thought the video clip content was a fabrication and that Datuk V.K Lingam was trying to impress the people around him, when the recording was made. Ahmad Fairuz, 66, was the 14th witness to give evidence before the Commission, after his predecessor Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin had left the stand.
"I immediately thought that it (the video) was defamatory. Two things crossed my mind. First, that it may be a fabrication and the other person speaking in the video clip wanted to impress someone or several people who were there when the video was made," he replied to questions by his counsel Salehuddin Saidin.
Ahmad Fairuz told the Commission that his former secretary informed him of the video clip and he watched it on the computer last Sept 19, but the video was choppy and he could not be sure that the person portrayed in the clip was Lingam.The courtroom also heard that his secretary handed him two Malaysiakini documents - the first titled "Video links CJ to judge fixing scandals" and the second "Transcript of Lingam's conversation with Ahmad Fairuz". "I read both documents several times the next day and proceeded to draft a letter.
"I issued letters to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department to express my opinion and position on the video," Ahmad Fairuz said, adding that he attached both documents as appendix to his correspondence.
"I sent the three letters because the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in Prime Minister's Department are representatives in the executive. I am the head of the Judiciary. Therefore, I need to inform the chief of the executive of the allegations (made) against me and my position on it," he said, when asked why he wrote to the three personalities.
On why he referred to the conversation as a "monologue" in his letters, Ahmad Fairuz replied: "My voice was not heard in the video. Only Datuk V.K Lingam's voice is heard."
Salehuddin also asked Ahmad Fairuz why he did not lodge a police report or did not take up any defamation suit against any parties.
To this, Ahmad Fairuz replied: "I did not think of filing a police report as the second last paragraph in the first appendix that the party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat which made the expose) will lodge a report with the ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) and a complaint with the Bar Council."
"Secondly, newspapers on
"If I make a report, it would be read as me admitting to be the senior judge. I had no intention to file a defamation suit as I was not sure of who was defaming me and ACA would be taking action (in the meantime).
"I must ascertain that it was defamation, that it was against me and then decide if I should take action or not," Ahmad Fairuz said.
He also said he declined to make comments to the media so as not to disrupt investigations.
On why he did not contact Lingam to express his disappointment on the matter, he said: "Nanti bangkit fitnah yang lain pula (It might cause another defamation). I did not want allegations to arise that I contacted him to persuade him to deny saying that, or even otherwise." "I was the Chief Justice of Malaya at the time. There was no reason to call him."
Ahmad Fairuz, in his testimony which lasted about an hour, denied having Lingam's contact numbers and gave evidence that he had only met Lingam at "one or two court cases" and at another occasion while visiting the late Datin Seri Endon Mahmood in the prime minister's home in Putrajaya.
Ahmad Fairuz denied having any knowledge of a meeting between Lingam, Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor for the appointment and elevation of judges, and neither did he agree to having any knowledge of conspiring between himself, Lingam, Tan and Tengku Adnan to ensure his appointment as Court of Appeal President and then as Chief Justice of Malaya.
= == = == = ==
Eusoff Denies Receiving Presents From Lingam
ABOVE: Eusoff Chin on Day 10 RCI
He said Lingam had never sought his assistance to lobby or broker the appointment of judges after he (Eusoff) retired.
= == = == = ==an another Lingam story?
Lazar Wants To Become Court Of Appeal Judge, Says Lingam
ABOVE: Lingam as usual smiling to newsmen on arrival on Day 10 RCI
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 28 (Bernama) -- Lawyer Datuk V.K.Lingam today revealed that Malaysian Bar representative Robert Lazar had approach him to seek assistance to meet former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as he wanted to be appointed as Court of Appeal Judge.
Lingam said at that time Lazar was a lawyer and he wanted to be appointed straight away as the Court of Appeal Judge without being appointed as Judicial Commissioner or High Court Judge beforehand as required.
"Since I was handling Mirzan Mahathir's case in a civil suit, while Lazar represented the other party, Lazar approached me not to see Eusoff Chin to seek assistance for him (Lazar) to be appointed as Court of Appeal Judge, but to speak to Dr Mahathir instead.
= ==== = = == =
No Need To Call Anwar To Testify In Inquiry For Now
The five-member panel headed by Haidar however allowed the application by Lingam's younger brother, Thirunama Karasu, to take the witness stand but his evidence will only be confined to certain issues.
The proceedings were held in camera to ensure that allegations which have have nothing to do with the video clip would not be included as evidence.
M. Puravalen, counsel for Anwar, and Wee Chee Keong for Thirunama Karasu, had submitted that the testimonies of their clients were relevant to the terms and conditions of the inquiry.
The inquiry, which enters its 10th day, was set up to, among others, ascertain the authenticity of the video clip, the truth of its content, identify the persons in the clip and recommend any appropriate action to be taken against those involved, if there is any misconduct.
= == = == = == = == == = == = =
Commission To Decide Today Whether To Call Anwar As Witness
Among others, the inquiry is being held to determine the authenticity of the video clip purportedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments over the telephone with a senior judge.The five-man panel comprises its chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, former chief judge of
= == = == =
Day 10 - from Malaysian Bar website - a chronological account
• Lingam stuns court with allegation
• Lazar wants to become Court Of Appeal judge, says Lingam
• Commission: No need for Anwar to testify
In respect of Thirunama Karasu, the Commission decided that certain designated portions of the evidence as set out in the 21-page statement submitted to the Commission would be allowed into evidence whereas the remainder would be wholly excluded. Datuk Shankar then informed all counsel of the paragraphs of the statement which contained evidence that would be allowed, i.e. paragraphs 1, 5, 8, 9(2). The remainder of the evidence was excluded on the grounds that it either had little or no probative value to matters germane to the terms of reference or was defamatory of persons not included in the proceedings.
Datuk Shankar added that to allow the airing of these statements would be tantamount to using the Commission as a conduit to publication and deprive the persons named from defending themselves. To bring these persons into the Inquiry merely to give them the opportunity to rebut the allegations made, would extend the scope of questioning well beyond the terms of reference.
As a word of caution, Datuk Shankar said that the truth of the proposed testimonies would only be decided upon by the Commission after hearing all evidence presented before the Commission. At this stage, the Commission marked the expert evidence report submitted by R. Thayalan, counsel for Dato' VK Lingam. Datuk Shankar then informed M. Puravalen that the Commission would like to have the full text of the proposed evidence of Murad Khalid, at which point counsel explained that Murad Khalid has appointed one Nahendran Navaratnam to represent him in these proceedings. Tan Sri Haidar asked for him to liaise directly with Dato' Nordin on this.
At this stage, Puravalen disclosed that there is now a third video clip, to which Tan Sri Haidar said: "On appointment of Judges? This is news. It's coming in by instalments. Please tell your client we have a time frame. We cannot dance to that tune. Time frame is set." Puravelan informed the Commission that his client only came into possession of the third video over the weekend and is willing to give it directly to the Commission. When asked to pass the new video to Dato' Nordin, Puravalen remarked that since the Commission is sitting he will pass it directly to them but will extend a copy to the DPP. Datuk Shankar remarked "The previous one was broadcast to the world before this. Now he wants to share this with us first?"
Dato' Lingam was then called to take the stand again. As the Malaysian Bar had completed questioning this witness, Wee Choo Keong stood up to start questioning. The witness said that he had 4 brothers and 2 sisters and that he was the eldest. The witness confirmed that Thirunama Karasu is his brother. He said that in 1970 he was in Form 6 and did not live in a rented
apartment with his siblings. He could not remember staying in SS21/12 PJ with his brothers. The witness said that he had purchased a house in Sea Park for RM21,000 and it was not purchased jointly with his siblings. He confirmed that Thirunama was working in his office from February 1996 to June 1996, and his job function was to photocopy court documents and assist in binding for about 2 hours a day. The witness said that he was aware that Thirunama had lodged a police report in March 2007. At this stage, the members of the Commission questioned Wee as to whether he understood their earlier ruling as the extent of questioning allowed. Proceedings were adjourned for 20 minutes for counsel to get instructions. Upon resumption, Datuk Shankar informed Wee that in order to accelerate the proceedings, the Commission would draw the witness to the relevant portions and ask him to comment.
Datuk Shankar then led the witness to paragraph 1 of the Statement of Thirunama, entitled "Sending Files to Tun Eusoff Chin's house". In the paragraph, Thirunama had described driving his brother, Dato' Lingam, to Tun Eusoff Chin's house and then going back to pick him up from there and hearing his brother say "Thank you My Lord. Thank you My Lord." Thirunama had stated in a subsequent paragraph that he drove Dato' Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin's house on several occasions using different cars, which Thirunama said he was told by Dato' Lingam was necessary to avoid being noticed. Thirunama also stated that on the occasion that the Perwaja's case was being investigated, he had heard Dato' Lingam's wife shout at him "Stop all this nonsense with these judges, there will be another investigation".
When asked to respond, Dato' Lingam replied that this was certainly not true. When asked whether he had anything to add, Dato' Lingam stated "I never had a BMW car in the first place. I only went to Tun Eusoff Chin's house once with my wife for Hari Raya Open House in 1995. That was the only
visit to Tun Eusoff Chin's house until today. That is all I have to say".
In response to Datuk Shankar's reading of paragraph 5 of the Statement entitled "Intended Purchase of a House for Tun Eusoff Chin", wherein Thirunama had stated that his brother had presented a house bearing address No. 2 SS1/28 Kg. Tunku, Petaling Jaya as a present to Tun Eusoff Chin and his wife, but which was rejected when Tun Eusoff Chin asked for a bigger
land to build a house of his own choice. Thirunama had stated that his brother then instructed him, and two others namely Sivaparamjothy and Panjaratnam to look for 2 plots of land for this purpose. In response, Dato' Lingam said the statements were untrue. "I have never had a car WDN. Not sure about WCN… need to check that. This house No. 2 in Kg Tunku, my wife was not happy with the house, so I put it on the market for sale. My brother Thirunama had the keys and was responsible for showing it to buyers. I did ask him to look for 2 plots of land, but that was for me."
When prompted further, he denied the specific references made by his brother of Tun Eusoff Chin and his wife at his house. Then Datuk Shankar led the witness through paragraph 8 of the Statement, entitled "Handbag and Wallet given to Tun Eusoff Chin", in which Thirunama stated that Dato' Lingam had instructed him to give the handbags and wallet he had purchased in
Datuk Shankar then went on to paragraph 9 of the Statement, in which Thirunama stated he was given RM1,200 cash by Dato' Lingam to purchase a handphone from a Mutiara TeleCommunications outlet at
At the end of this series of questions, Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked the witness whether his wife or anyone in his family owned a BMW. The witness said no one in his family owned a BMW registration No. WDX788. Dato' Lingam also said he did not know of anybody who owned a BMW registration No. WDX788.
Mohd Fauzi, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, then asked a few questions. The witness confirmed that apart from the 1995
apart from that Hari Raya visit he testified on earlier while admitting that Tun Eusoff Chin had only once visited his house for Deepavali in 1995. When questioned on the
Tun Eusoff Chin to be a partner or consultant in his firm, nor introduced him to be partner or consultant to his friends, or introduced him to business associates or Tan Sri Vincent Tan with the view of being appointed as chairman of a company. When reprimanded by the Commission, Mohd Fauzi said this line of questioning was necessary because "it was better that the witness clarify than the public speculates". The witness went on to testify that he had never lobbied any of his lawyer friends to be appointed as a Judicial Commissioner or Judge, although someone did approach him for help to be elevated straight to the Court of Appeal, not through Tun Eusoff Chin but to speak to
At this point Tan Sri Haidar interjected:
Tan Sri Haidar: This is during Tun Eusoff Chin's regime?
Dato' Lingam: Yes, during his regime.
M.Fauzi: What happened? Did you accede to the request?
Dato' Lingam: I told him I don't know Dr Mahathir. He asked me to speak to my client Mirzan Mahathir. I told him I can't. He is my client, not my friend. He appealed to me. When asked, Dato' Lingam then denied ever conducting meetings with Tun Eusoff Chin and Tan Sri Vincent Tan relating to the appointment of judges or ever asking Tun Eusoff Chin to see Tengku Adnan or Tan Sri Vincent Tan regarding the promotion or appointment of Judges. The witness said, after
Tun Eusoff Chin's retirement in 2000, he had never consulted him on the appointment or promotion of Judges. Mohd Fauzi then started to question the witness on whether, at the
Mohd Fauzi declined further questioning. Ranjit Singh then stood up again to ask the witness about the person he was referring to earlier that had approached him for assistance to be elevated directly to the Court of Appeal and how he came to know of this person. When Tan Sri Haidar expressed his concern on whether that person's name appeared in the transcript, Ranjit assured the Commission that he did not intend to ask Dato' Lingam to reveal the identity of that person. Dato' Lingam said the person was a lawyer known to him, which he did not socialise with. When asked why this lawyer was under the impression that Dato' Lingam could assist him on this issue, Dato' Lingam replied "I guess this person was desperate, he wanted to go directly to the Court of Appeal. He didn't want to be a JC or Judge of the High Court. He told me there is a precedent set to go direct. I was in Mirzan's case, he was representing Star newspapers. His name is Robert Lazar and he is from Shearn Delamore. He said: You are the man to help me. I told him I don't know Mahathir". On further questioning, the witness said this happened in early 2000.
Subsequently, Puravalen brought Dato' Lingam's attention to page 10 of the Transcript of the Video where an Indian man referred to himself being well connected. On Puravalen's query, the witness confirmed that he had only met Tun Dr Mahathir officially after he had been engaged to represent him in a case, and that the witness may have seen Tun Dr Mahathir at a function. When it was pointed out that the witness had answered "can't remember" on 26 occasions in response to questions concerning the transcript, Dato' Lingam confirmed that he had never suffered any problems of memory loss and that he was very much in active practice.
Alex De Silva, counsel for Loh Gwo Burne, attempted to question Dato' Lingam on the issue of whether he was drunk at the time of the video clip. He however ceased this line of questioning when Tan Sri Haidar stated this had already been covered earlier.
Thayalan then re-examined his witness, asking the witness why his own brother would have reason to make up stories about him. To this, Dato' Lingam said "I'll make a long story very short. There is a breakdown in the relationship between my brother Thiru and his younger brother Rajendra and other members of the family. The other members of the family have been supporting Thiru and Rajen since our parents have died and they want free money. And that we cannot do. In January, Thiru told my sister that I promised to give him a bungalow, car and educate his children. My sister said that cannot be. He said that if I did not give this, he would file a police report against me. After the police report was filed, his lawyer Manoharan said: "he has made the report, are you prepared to give him now?"
None are true, he is a psychiatric patient. He said he would look into the matter. That's all." The Commission then noted Dato' Nordin's stand that he intended to call Tun Eusoff Chin next to complete his testimony and that it would be followed by Tun Ahmad Fairuz's testimony.The morning session adjourned at . Proceedings are to resume at 2 pm
= == = == = == ==DAY 10 - Afternon Session by Malaysian Bar
Contributed by Dipendra Harshad Rai and Syamsuriatina Ishak
KUALA LUMPUR: Proceedings started with Yeo Yang Poh making an application before the Commission for Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, to testify to show that there was no truth in some of the allegations made by Dato' Lingam. The Commission allowed the application and asked Robert Lazar to attend before the Commission to testify. Datuk Shankar also remarked that the panel observed the manner the last witness volunteered his information and noted the manner in which it was done.
Tun Eusoff Chin was then called as witness. Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked Tun Eusoff Chin to identify some of the photographs.
Tun Eusoff Chin could not recall some of the photographs. He could not remember where the photographs were taken because it was too long ago. To a question in relation to his comments in The Sun newspaper (Exhibit C53), Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that it was his arm on Dato' Lingam's shoulder.
Tun Eusoff Chin also confirmed that it was members of his family and Dato' Lingam's family shown in a series of pictures marked as Exhibit C62-68. To a question by Ranjit, Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that the photograph shows he was fishing next to Dato' Lingam and although he could recall the trip he could not recall where it was. Ranjit then suggested that it was in
At this stage, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, Zamani Ibrahim asked if it was necessary to probe this deep. Tan Sri Haidar said that the panel will draw its own conclusions. Ranjit then queried Tun Eusoff if he and his family walked around and booked the boat, and that if Tun Eusoff was not with Dato' Lingam "how did you both materialise on the same boat ?". To this, Tun Eusoff Chin answered that you have to fill up forms etc. and upon filling up the forms, he realised that Dato' Lingam was behind him, and Dato' Lingam asked him if he could tag along. The boatman said yes as the boat could take a dozen or so people. He said there was nothing suspicious. It is purely coincidence that Dato' Lingam was around. Ranjit then asked the witness about their travel itinerary and whether the itinerary was a private document between Tun Eusoff Chin and the tour company. Tun Eusoff Chin said that the itinerary was kept by the secretary, he did not have time to book, and his secretary called up this lady called
Betty Lim who goes about booking travel arrangements for judges, and that Betty Lim planned the whole trip. He then asked "what is so wrong about this" and in any event, there is a circular informing all judges when he was away. He also confirmed that he did not know a lady called Jeyanthi.
were merely that the meetings were planned or just merely coincidental.
Ranjit stated that this questioning was in relation to the closeness of the relationship between Dato' Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin. It was a question of misbehaviour arising out of the video clip and suggested that failure to becuse in one case and not another may suggest otherwise. Ranjit then added that there was recusal in Param Cumaraswamy's case but not the others. Datuk Shankar said that Lazar had previously elicited evidence of failure to recuse and there was no need to get into this further. Tan Sri Steve Shim also echoed this sentiment.
Ranjit then referred Tun Eusoff Chin to the transcript. Tun Eusoff Chin said he did not know what memorandum Dato' Lingam was referring to. Tun Eusoff Chin also said that after he retired he did not influence the appointment of judges as there was another Chief Justice in place and did not know why Dato' Lingam would mention his name. Tun Eusoff Chin also denied knowing what Dato' Lingam meant when he said that Tun Eusoff Chin was trying to put his people but had "run out of soldiers". Tun Eusoff Chin also denied knowing the basis of various paragraphs of the transcript posed to him.
Tun Eusoff Chin also said that the paragraph referring to Dato' Lingam firing Tan Sri Vincent Tan at the latter's house made no sense and asked if Dato' Lingam took out a gun and fired at him. Then Tun Eusoff Chin again stressed that he did know why Dato' Lingam chose to mention his name in the fight "for us" (referring to Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Dato' Lingam). He denied the subsequent paragraphs of the transcript posed to him. Ranjit then asked about Fairuz on the election petition involving Wee Choo Keong. Tun Eusoff Chin said he was not aware. To the question of who
appointed Tun Ahmad Fairuz as election judge, Tun Eusoff Chin said that Ranjit should look at the law. At this stage, Ranjit quoted section 33 of the Election Act which said that Chief Justice appoints election judges. At that stage, Tan Sri Haidar commented that whether it was Chief Justice or
Chief Judge of
Tun Eusoff Chin also denied that Dato' Lingam came to his house and had any discussions with him or for that matter that sometime in 1995, Dato' Lingam wanted to give him a house in Kg. Tunku as a gift. Tun Eusoff Chin also denied that Dato' Lingam came to his house with files and left a couple of hours later. The witness also denied that he was given a ladies' handbag and wallets and said that these were all lies. He also denied that Dato' Lingam had ever purchased a handphone for him, but confirmed having a 016 number which he still does. Ranjit then remarked to the panel that his line of questioning was get the ACA to trace the numbers.
Tun Eusoff Chin also said that he had read the transcript for the first time recently and a few days before receiving his summons to appear before this Commission. He also confirmed that he did not have any contact with Dato' Lingam after his retirement. However, he confirmed that when he was CJ "anyone can approach me. Even the smallest person can do so. I would give them one or two minutes." He also confirmed that Dato' Lingam could walk into his room but denied this ever happening. Tun Eusoff Chin could not remember the following number "7763706" which was his office number in 1998.
Datuk Shankar wanted clarification wherein Tun Eusoff Chin confirmed that he has not seen Thirunama Karasu before but said that he had met one of Dato' Lingam's brothers who is a lawyer.
Wee, counsel for Thirunama Karasu, then began cross-examining Tun Eusoff Chin. Tun Eusoff Chin denied visiting Dato' Lingam when Dato' Lingam's wife was ill. He also denied going to Dato' Lingam's house to send them off to the
During re-examination by Zamani Ibrahim, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, thewitness said that he did not have any copies of the photos shown as exhibits as they were taken by Dato' Lingam's people. He also did not take any photographs. Tun Eusoff Chin also confirmed that his wife bought a house in 1989 where he is staying now. The witness also stated that there were occasions when his suggestions for confirmation, appointments and promotions of judges were refused by the Prime Minister. He then denied having any contact with the judiciary after his retirement. Tun Eusoff Chin said that he paid for his
Tun Ahmad Fairuz called
Tun Ahmad Fairuz was then called to the stand. Upon questioning by DPP Dato' Azmi Arifin, he answered standard queries pertaining to his appointment as Chief Justice. Tun Fairuz said he knew Dato' Lingam but only in the capacity of "lawyer-judge". Then he also said he knew Tan Sri Vincent Tan and said that his contact with the latter came during official state functions and did not go beyond that. Tun Fairuz also said that he knew Tengku Adnan ever since he became Deputy Minister at the Prime Minister's department and met him at official state functions.
In relation to the video clip, Tun Fairuz confirmed that his attention to it was drawn by his ex-secretary, and admitted that he saw the video clip only once. However, he could not identify if the Indian man was Dato' Lingam as the video was "putus, putus" at which point the video clip was played for him. When asked again, Tun Fairuz repeated that he could not identify the Indian man as Dato' Lingam but added that he has seen Dato' Lingam in court and when Dato' Lingam visited the late Datin Seri Endon. However, he confirmed that they are similarities between the Indian man and Dato' Lingam.
Tun Fairuz also confirmed that he did not meet Dato' Lingam, Tan Sri Vincent Tan or Tengku Adnan at any time to discuss his appointment or for that matter any other appointment. He also denied knowledge that Dato' Lingam would get Tengku Adnan to speak to the Prime Minister. Further, he said that in the video clip the phrase Dato' Ahmad Fairuz referred to him and confirmed that at the time of the recording, he was the acting President of the Court of Appeal. Tun Fairuz also did not know if Tan Sri Malik was ever recommended as Chief Justice and denied ever thanking Dato' Lingam on his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal. The witness also denied asking for any help from Dato' Lingam, Tengku Adnan or Tan Sri Vincent on his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal or Chief Justice.
To a set of questions by his counsel, Tun Fairuz confirmed that he knew of the video clip on or about
Tun Fairuz's reaction to the video clip was that he thought it was a "fitnah", a fabrication and that the person on the other line wanted to impress the person he was talking to when the video was taken. He confirmed that he took further action by drafting 3 letters to the Prime Minister,
Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister's department. Tun Fairuz said he did so because they were the representatives of the Executive and that since he was the head of the Judiciary, he had to explain the allegations made against him. Asked why he used "VK Lingam" when writingto the PM, DPM and Minister, he said that he could not identify who the person was in the video. He also said that in the said letters, it was all allegations and that his name was not mentioned nor was his voice heard on the other line. Then Tun Fairuz said he did not make a police report or file a defamation suit because the MalaysiaKini reports already stated that a report to the ACA and Bar Council would be made and secondly, that his name was not mentioned as it only said senior Judge.
He added that he was not sure who defamed him and that there was already a police investigation in place. Tun Fairuz said his letters to the Executive was on a need to know basis and refrained from commenting to any newspapers as he did not want to jeopardise the investigations. He also confirmed that he did not know Dato' Lingam's telephone number, nor did he ever give it to him, nor did he invite him to his Hari Raya open house, nor did he knowwhere Dato' Lingam lives. He said he had no reason to call Dato' Lingam. He repeated the same when asked about Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan, other than knowing them from official state functions. Tun Fairuz confirmed that he knew Tun EusoffChin as Tun Eusoff Chin was his boss, and he had to respect him as his boss.
The witness denied receiving any memo from any party.To a question whether he knew someone called Wee Choo Keong, he said he knew Wee from a case in 1995 and as far as he is concerned, he was appointed as an election judge by the then CJM Tan Sri Anuar. He then confirmed that he made his decision on Wee's election petition based on facts and law and repeated that Dato' Lingam may have implicated him simply because he wanted to impress the persons in the video clip. Tun Ahmad Fairuz confirmed he did not know if anyone ever lobbied for his appointment or promotion. Proceedings came to an end at .
= == = == = == == = == == = == = == == = == =DAY 9 BELOW = = == = == = == == = ==
= == = == Just ask these so called experts to show 1 sec of the Clip (with 30 frames) to illustrate which frame has been "doctored" or "superimposed" with either images or sound instead oa arguing over methodology.
Day 9 – RCI; Morning testimony was in Camera . Open in afternoon and the Video Clip was again stated as authentic. There was a silly question about the “age of the Video Clip by analyzing the Camera”. Easier & Better to check the Model the Sony Camera was released in the market and you can tell if the Clip age is in the year 2001 as the recorder Gwo Burne mentioned he got the camera two weeks before he corded the Clip
= == == == = == = == ==
= == == == = == = == ==
Video Clip Is Authentic, Says Witness
Lingam video clip is authentic, says expert
Llew-Ann Phang theSUN
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 25, 2008): CyberSecurity Sdn Bhd (forensics digital division) senior analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib maintained at the Royal Commission proceedings today that the recording purportedly of Datuk V.K. Lingam is authentic. Mohd Zabri, the fifth witness, took to the stand after the Commission had conducted more than six hours of its proceedings in camera.
Lingam’s counsel R.Thayalan grilled Mohd Zabri on his qualifications to carry out the voice identification, how the analysis was done on the eight minute and 14-minute recordings, and the tools used. Thayalan contended that the tools used by Mohd Zabri were not "geared specifically for voice analysis" to which Mohd Zabri disagreed with the statement. Thayalan said he would make an application to the Commission to call for two video and speaker identification experts to explain that the "methods used – by international standards – were not correct".
To this Mohd Zabri reacted saying that CyberSecurity’s laboratory used "the best international standards and standard operating procedures". Thayalan maintained that his experts informed him that an analysis can only be done from the original source. "We have evidence that this video was taken from websites," he added. Commision chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor then interjected pointing out that the proceedings had seen two witnesses saying Lingam was the person in the video.
Thayalan again said he took the stand that the authentication can only be done from the original source, prompting Haidar to ask Thayalan to put a question to Mohd Zabri if he thought the analysis can only be done with the original copy of the clip. In his reply, Mohd Zabri said: "No, the evidence is sufficient and authentic enough for analysis." Later, Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar asked Mohd Zabri to explain what he had said about the practices of the laboratory for the record. "On analysis of multimedia forensics, we follow the best practices in international standards whereby the equipment used in analysing the speaker identity is validated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which is an organisation that standardise and validates forensic tools," Mohd Zabri said.
Thayalan later referred the Commission to his application for the two witnesses to give evidence before the Royal Commission, to which Mahadev asked: "Without knowing what they are going to say, how are we going to agree to call them?"
To which Thayalan said he will get a copy of the report if the commission wished.Haidar then said he would tell Thayalan the decision on Monday (Jan 28)B .efore proceedings adjourned, Mahadev verified with Thayalan on his aim to bring his two witnesses.
"If I understood your line of questioning to the witness, your experts are saying that only with sophisticated, proper equipment can we be 100% sure that it is your client but you’re not suggesting that the witnesses’ conclusion is wrong, right?" Mahadev asked, to which Thayalan agreed.
On Monday the Commission will also make a decision on submission of witnesses and evidence by counsel Wee Choo Keong who is acting for Lingam’s brother Thirunama Karasu and counsel M. Puravelan who is representing Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Sim Tze Tzin and Sivarasa Rasiah.
= == = ==
tests," he said. To a question from Salehuddin Saidin, counsel for former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who has been implicated in the video clip, he said that after analysing the video camera, he could not establish the age of the recording. The inquiry is to ascertain, among others, the authenticity of the video clip purportedly featuring lawyer V.K.Lingam brokering judicial appointments over the phone.
= == = == = === = =Coming next post- Anwar’s 3rd 5 mins Video Clip
Anwar Has Third Video Clip On Brokering Of Judges
Earlier, Haidar questioned why Anwar did not forward the tape earlier. He said Anwar should have not disclosed the tape in stages as the commission had a time-frame to complete its work. Puravelan answered that the tape only came into Anwar's possession during the weekend. Haidar then said the commission would look at the tape to see whether it was relevant or not. Another commissioner, Datuk Mahadev Shankar, then said: "The previous video clip was broadcast to the world but now he wants to share it with us (the commission) and not anybody else."
Anwar had released an 8-minute and a 14-minute video clip purportedly showing lawyer Datuk V.K.Lingam brokering judicial appointments over the phone with a top judge. The inquiry is to ascertain the authenticity of the clip, among others.= == = === == = == For Video Clip 5min Trascript (unofficial, not 100% correct) Go H E R E