Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram today said that Daim Zainuddin could be hauled for contempt of court for his statement to the press in which the former finance minister questioned the court's motives in dragging his name into the Metramac scandal.

"Daim told the press: 'I do not know what the court's motives are'. Our motives here is to do justice without fear and favour. And let me say this: This (Daim's) statement is contemptuous!

"We fear no one, however wealthy or however powerful they are. This institution does not fear anybody! We are the people who have sworn to uphold the constitution and interpret the acts of Parliament.

"Are we to keep quiet when we see there is something wrong? Is it better to shut up and look like fools rather than to open our mouths and cast doubts?"

The judge made the hard-hitting remarks while hearing arguments from DP Vijandran, the counsel acting on behalf of Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd's lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is facing possible contempt proceeding for sending a letter of complaint against the judge.

In an 18-page statement, Daim denied that his protege, Halim Saad, who was accused of siphoning RM32.5 million with his ex-business partner Anuar Othman from toll concessionaire Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd, had enjoyed his patronage.

Halim had also denied the charge, which surfaced in a recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Fawziah Holdings versus Metramac.

Rich and powerful

Vijandran had earlier submitted that Shafee had sent the letter of complaint to Court of Appeal president Abdul Malek Ahmad and Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Ab Halim because of the remarks made by the judge against Daim and Metramac co-owners Halim Saad and Anuar Othman.

The lawyer said the letter was not meant to interfere in the administration of justice as alleged by the court but rather to protect the interest of Metramac.

Gopal said that his remarks made in the appellate court judgment were based on evidence adduced at the trial.

"The individuals were implicated even at the High Court level. There were documents stating the drawing of money from the company. The documents speak for themselves.

"These are remarks made against the rich and powerful. They cannot think that they are above the law... Let me remind them: Be you ever so high, the law is above you. Just because they are rich and powerful do not mean that they can attack the court and get away with this."

The judge also questioned why Metramac took offence to his statements when he was not attacking the company.

Vijandran replied that Shafee (photo) got the impression that the remarks made by the judge against Halim and Daim indicated that the judge may have been bias against the company.

'You have rogues for clients'

He argued that the court should give freedom of speech under Article 10 of the federal constitution some latitude in looking at the matter, and that Shafee should be allowed to express his fear against any possible bias that his client may face.

"There is a need to balance the right of freedom of speech and the need to protect the administration of justice. We submit that Article 10 should be construed to give enough latitude to lawyers to raise matters as in the present case."

In response, Gopal described Vijandran's submission as "cruel and unfair" as the court had dispensed justice and fairness for all parties to make their arguments throughout the appeal process.

"If you have rogues for clients, then you have rogues for clients. The case had an unusual feature... Here we have RM32.5 million - mind you we are not talking about RM32.50 - but millions of taxpayers' money which was taken out without any reference to any agreement.

"You mean to say that the public are not to raise an eyebrow and look at the court as the final bastion to their rights? If the people is not able to speak then we must do so. If not, then for what purpose are we here?

"Are we decorative pieces that adorn this court? If that is so then we are no different than the light bulbs above us!"

'Lousy lawyers'

Gopal further stressed that the court cannot ignore a misdeed especially when it concerned the interest of the public.

"If we see something is wrong, we must speak. But when we do it, the gentleman questioned the motive of this court," said Gopal referring to Daim.

He also said that Halim and Daim could had testified at the High Court to explain the alleged transaction of money.

"But they were not called. When you have lousy lawyers to represent you, you cannot now blame the Court the Appeal!"

Another appellate court judge, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, also questioned why Shafee failed to express his dissatisfaction to the court openly and instead "went behind the judges" to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal president and the chief justice.

'If he did not want us to hear the stay application (which was subsequently granted by the same court) then why did he not openly asked for our recusal. Why write to the president alleging misconduct and bias?" asked Zulkefli, who is part of the three-member appellate court panel along with Gopal and Hashim Yusoff.

Vijandran replied that Shafee wrote the letter to limit publicity on the matter.

"My client feels that the fewer people know about this, the better, Surely that is a bona fide (good) intention on his behalf,"said Vijandran urging the court not to initiate contempt proceeding against his client.

At the end of today's proceedings, the court adjourned the court hearing to a date to be fixed later.