‘Tape could explain certain disputed issues in inquiry’

KUALA LUMPUR: A third-video clip would clear former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin from an allegation that his 1994 New Zealand holiday trip was arranged for and paid by lawyer Datuk V K Lingam, the High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) heard yesterday.

Eusoff Chin’s counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad, however, said the Royal Commission of Inquiry that conducted the probe into the video clips which allegedly showed Lingam brokering judicial appointments on the telephone, rejected his application to adduce the third tape in the proceedings.

He said the tape, which was in former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s possession, could explain certain disputed issues in the inquiry relating to the allegation of a pre-planned and paid trip to New Zealand.

Hazman was presenting his arguments in the proceeding in the court in which five men including Eusoff Chin are seeking leave to review the commission’s findings that the two video clips lasting 22 minutes to be authentic and the person Lingam was speaking to was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

The commission also recommended that action be taken against six individuals — Lingam, Eusoff Chin, Ahmad Fairuz, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, UMNO secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad — for misconduct.

Dr Mahathir did not file application for leave to review the inquiry findings.

Anwar had earlier released two video clips on the scandal, the first lasting 8 minutes and the second 14 minutes, which led to the setting up of the setting up of the commission to determine among others their authenticity.

The commission, in its report, found that there was sufficient evidence to investigate the six men on offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and the Penal Code, and the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Earlier, Hazman submitted that the five commissioners who sat in the inquiry had committed one or more contradicting rulings which resulted in wrong process of making a decision.

He said the commission’s ruling allowing parties in the inquiry to question the New Zealand trip prejudiced Eusoff Chin because the issue was not related to the matter of brokering appointment of judges as was discussed in the video clip.

Hazman said the trip took place in 1994 and the video clip was recorded in Dec 2001. “Eusoff Chin retired in Dec 2000 and has no interest and power in the judiciary to influence or to interfere into the appointment of judges,” he said.

Hazman also said the commission should also have disallowed two witnesses —Lingam’s younger brother V.

Thirunama Karasu and Lingam’s former secretary G.Jayanthi— from having testified in the inquiry.

“Their evidence were baseless allegations and tainted with ulterior motives and vengeance. They have been used by certain quarters to testify before the inquiry to

tarnish Eusoff Chin’s reputation knowing that it was out of the terms of reference, and had nothing to do with the brokering of judicial appointments,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ahmad Fairuz’s counsel Mahinder Singh Dulku submitted his client could file for a judicial review on the commission’s findings because his fundamental liberties was adversely affected by the findings.

The hearing before Justice Datuk Abdul Kadir Musa continues Oct 16.

— Bernama