Evasive Ahmad Fairuz grilled at inquiry
Chua Sue-AnnPublished: Jan 29, 2008 7:20 PM | Updated: Feb 4, 2008 8:53 PM
Former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim remained evasive on the public’s need to know about judicial misconducts when questioned at the royal commission of inquiry into the Lingam tape today.
Lingam tape inquiry
When questioned, Ahmad Fairuz refused to state if the public had a right to know about judicial impropriety.
Former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim remained evasive on the public’s need to know about judicial misconducts when questioned at the royal commission of inquiry into the Lingam tape today.
Yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz testified that he had written letters to the leaders of the executive branch, on a “need to know” basis to state his position on the allegations made in the explosive video clip.
He told the inquiry that he had written to the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Aziz and had attached a Malaysiakini news report and transcript.
Today Malaysian Bar representative Yeo Yang Poh grilled the former chief justice as to why he did not see it fit to clarify the matter to the public.
“When scandalous allegations were made that affects the judiciary, are you suggesting that only the heads of the executive has the need to know but not the public?” asked Yeo, who was former Bar Council chairperson.
Ahmad Fairuz’s counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin objected to the question, arguing that “it is an unfair assumption that the witness has made up his mind that the public need not know.”
Commissioner Mahadev Shankar however persisted with questioning Ahmad Fairuz along those lines but the latter refused to state if he felt the public needed to know.
Mahadev: You said “on a need to know basis”. Need to know what? What content of the material that you felt the ministers needed to know but not the public?
Ahmad Fairuz: The first attachment to the letters (Malaysiakini news report) refers to the conversation made with me. I am denying it. The prime minister needed to know.
Mahadev: But the public need not?
Ahmad Fairuz: That’s not what I said. They (ministers) are in the executive branch. I was the head of the judicial branch. I felt that the heads of the executive branch should know that I am denying (the allegations).
Mahadev: So it follows that nobody else needed to know?
Ahmad Fairuz: I did not say that.
No steps to restore confidence
While Ahmad Fairuz agreed with Yeo that allegations of judicial impropriety - regardless of its truth - would affect public confidence, the former said that he did not take remedial measures so as to not jeopardise any Anti-Corruption Agency investigations.
Yeo: Seeing it was a matter of great importance, tell us why you have not made a public denial at the earliest opportunity?
Ahmad Fairuz: It was already the subject of investigation.
Yeo: Is it appropriate for the head of the judiciary to remain silent (in matters affecting the public)?
Ahmad Fairuz: I did not make a statement because I did not want to jeopardise the investigation.
Yeo: Wouldn’t it be contempt of the court if it puts the judiciary in very bad light?
Ahmad Fairuz: Yes.
Yeo: If judicial is scandalised, should not the chief justice take action? At the very least, call the lawyer to explain?
Ahmad Fairuz: First and foremost, it is a matter of investigation. We don’t know what is the result of the ACA investigation, if it is fabricated, we don’t know who the person is. It is difficult for me to issue a summons for contempt.
The commission also heard that Ahmad Fairuz had issued a “No comment” statement on Sep 21, 2007 via his special assistant in response to Malaysiakini’s request for his comments when the issue broke.
Bragging not proper conduct
Ahmad Fairuz was also questioned as to how he arrived at the opinion that Lingam was “bragging” after watching the eight-minute clip where only Lingam was seen to be speaking on a mobile phone.
Ahmad Fairuz said that he presumed there were other people in Lingam’s company when the video was filmed, when Yeo suggested that the presence of an audience is needed for a person to show off.
Yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz testified that his initial reaction to the allegations made in the footage “... was a fabrication and that the person talking was trying to impress somebody.”
Ahmad Fairuz only watched the full 14-minute clip for the first time yesterday, where the additional six minutes shows Lingam in conversation with businessman Loh Mui Fah.
Yeo: Would it be proper conduct for a lawyer to brag about things like that?
Ahmad Fairuz: It depends ... if it’s done in front of his client...
Yeo: You are saying if a lawyer brags privately to his own client, about things that are absolutely untrue, implying that top judges, implying he put them up there...?
Ahmad Fairuz: It could be improper conduct.
Pre-planned passage?
Yeo also highlighted parallels to Ahmad Fairuz’s statements and instructions given by Lingam to the person he was shown to be conversing with in the infamous video clip.
He referred to press statement dated Nov 11, 2001 where Ahmad Fairuz was quoted as saying, “As far as I’m concerned... I thank God for this appointment and since then I work very hard.”
The lawyer then referred to a portion in the transcript that reads: “But you just keep quiet - don’t say anything. Don’t … even the press ask, you said I leave it to God, that’s all. Don’t say. I really like your message. You said I work very hard, what can I do? I leave it to God. That’s the best answer, Datuk, that you can ever give. Ah.”
Asked if the person in the telephone conversation could be referring to the same statement, Ahmad Fairuz replied that he did not know.
When pressed former chief justice Eusoff Chin’s counsel Zamani Ibrahim as to whether it was as simple to elevate judges as alleged by Lingam in the video, Ahmad Fairuz disagreed.
“Under the constitution, there is a series of consultation. I don’t think it’s so simple to put up a judge...” Ahmad Fairuz said.
Zamani also questioned Ahmad Fairuz on whether Lingam, business tycoon Vincent Tan and Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor were in a position to recommend judges.
“Well, at the initial stage ... the prime minister will consult the chief justice, chief judges, presidents and go further to the conference of rulers. The prime minister can consult anybody else, there is no prohibition in the constitution,” Ahmad Fairuz said.
Explain election petition
Attempts by Yeo and lawyer Wee Choo Keong to interrogate Ahmad Fairuz about his controversial decision in 1995 - where he upheld an election petition contesting Wee’s victory for the Bukit Bintang parliamentary seat under a DAP ticket - were disallowed by the commission.
In response to Yeo’s question if the normal course of action would be to order a by-election, Ahmad Fairuz reiterated that he “acted under facts and the law”.
Instead of calling for a by-election, Ahmad Fairuz declared Wee’s opponent, Barisan Nasional candidate Dr Lee Chong Meng, the winner - a decision which was final at that time.
Kamarul objected on the grounds that the election petition case fell outside the commission’s terms of reference. He also reminded the Bar Council of its assertion that the proceedings are not meant to be adversarial.
Wee is representing Lingam’s estranged younger brother Thirunama Karasu in the inquiry.
Laughter erupted when Mahadev responded, “Mr Wee, this is not a Court of Appeal.”
Yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz testified that he had written letters to the leaders of the executive branch, on a “need to know” basis to state his position on the allegations made in the explosive video clip.
He told the inquiry that he had written to the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Aziz and had attached a Malaysiakini news report and transcript.
Today Malaysian Bar representative Yeo Yang Poh grilled the former chief justice as to why he did not see it fit to clarify the matter to the public.
“When scandalous allegations were made that affects the judiciary, are you suggesting that only the heads of the executive has the need to know but not the public?” asked Yeo, who was former Bar Council chairperson.
Ahmad Fairuz’s counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin objected to the question, arguing that “it is an unfair assumption that the witness has made up his mind that the public need not know.” Commissioner Mahadev Shankar however persisted with questioning Ahmad Fairuz along those lines but the latter refused to state if he felt the public needed to know.
Mahadev: You said “on a need to know basis”. Need to know what? What content of the material that you felt the ministers needed to know but not the public?
Ahmad Fairuz: The first attachment to the letters (Malaysiakini news report) refers to the conversation made with me. I am denying it. The prime minister needed to know.
Mahadev: But the public need not?
Ahmad Fairuz: That’s not what I said. They (ministers) are in the executive branch. I was the head of the judicial branch. I felt that the heads of the executive branch should know that I am denying (the allegations).
Mahadev: So it follows that nobody else needed to know?
Ahmad Fairuz: I did not say that.
No steps to restore confidence
While Ahmad Fairuz agreed with Yeo that allegations of judicial impropriety - regardless of its truth - would affect public confidence, the former said that he did not take remedial measures so as to not jeopardise any Anti-Corruption Agency investigations.Yeo: Seeing it was a matter of great importance, tell us why you have not made a public denial at the earliest opportunity?
Ahmad Fairuz: It was already the subject of investigation.
Yeo: Is it appropriate for the head of the judiciary to remain silent (in matters affecting the public)?
Ahmad Fairuz: I did not make a statement because I did not want to jeopardise the investigation.
Yeo: Wouldn’t it be contempt of the court if it puts the judiciary in very bad light?
Ahmad Fairuz: Yes.
Yeo: If judicial is scandalised, should not the chief justice take action? At the very least, call the lawyer to explain?
Ahmad Fairuz: First and foremost, it is a matter of investigation. We don’t know what is the result of the ACA investigation, if it is fabricated, we don’t know who the person is. It is difficult for me to issue a summons for contempt.
The commission also heard that Ahmad Fairuz had issued a “No comment” statement on Sep 21, 2007 via his special assistant in response to Malaysiakini’s request for his comments when the issue broke.
Bragging not proper conduct
Ahmad Fairuz was also questioned as to how he arrived at the opinion that Lingam was “bragging” after watching the eight-minute clip where only Lingam was seen to be speaking on a mobile phone.Ahmad Fairuz said that he presumed there were other people in Lingam’s company when the video was filmed, when Yeo suggested that the presence of an audience is needed for a person to show off.
Yesterday, Ahmad Fairuz testified that his initial reaction to the allegations made in the footage “... was a fabrication and that the person talking was trying to impress somebody.”
Ahmad Fairuz only watched the full 14-minute clip for the first time yesterday, where the additional six minutes shows Lingam in conversation with businessman Loh Mui Fah.
Yeo: Would it be proper conduct for a lawyer to brag about things like that?
Ahmad Fairuz: It depends ... if it’s done in front of his client...
Yeo: You are saying if a lawyer brags privately to his own client, about things that are absolutely untrue, implying that top judges, implying he put them up there...?
Ahmad Fairuz: It could be improper conduct.
Pre-planned passage?
Yeo also highlighted parallels to Ahmad Fairuz’s statements and instructions given by Lingam to the person he was shown to be conversing with in the infamous video clip.
He referred to press statement dated Nov 11, 2001 where Ahmad Fairuz was quoted as saying, “As far as I’m concerned... I thank God for this appointment and since then I work very hard.”
The lawyer then referred to a portion in the transcript that reads: “But you just keep quiet - don’t say anything. Don’t … even the press ask, you said I leave it to God, that’s all. Don’t say. I really like your message. You said I work very hard, what can I do? I leave it to God. That’s the best answer, Datuk, that you can ever give. Ah.”
Asked if the person in the telephone conversation could be referring to the same statement, Ahmad Fairuz replied that he did not know.
When pressed former chief justice Eusoff Chin’s counsel Zamani Ibrahim as to whether it was as simple to elevate judges as alleged by Lingam in the video, Ahmad Fairuz disagreed.
“Under the constitution, there is a series of consultation. I don’t think it’s so simple to put up a judge...” Ahmad Fairuz said.
Zamani also questioned Ahmad Fairuz on whether Lingam, business tycoon Vincent Tan and Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor were in a position to recommend judges.
“Well, at the initial stage ... the prime minister will consult the chief justice, chief judges, presidents and go further to the conference of rulers. The prime minister can consult anybody else, there is no prohibition in the constitution,” Ahmad Fairuz said.
Explain election petition
Attempts by Yeo and lawyer Wee Choo Keong to interrogate Ahmad Fairuz about his controversial decision in 1995 - where he upheld an election petition contesting Wee’s victory for the Bukit Bintang parliamentary seat under a DAP ticket - were disallowed by the commission. In response to Yeo’s question if the normal course of action would be to order a by-election, Ahmad Fairuz reiterated that he “acted under facts and the law”.
Instead of calling for a by-election, Ahmad Fairuz declared Wee’s opponent, Barisan Nasional candidate Dr Lee Chong Meng, the winner - a decision which was final at that time.
Kamarul objected on the grounds that the election petition case fell outside the commission’s terms of reference. He also reminded the Bar Council of its assertion that the proceedings are not meant to be adversarial.
Wee is representing Lingam’s estranged younger brother Thirunama Karasu in the inquiry.
Laughter erupted when Mahadev responded, “Mr Wee, this is not a Court of Appeal.”
View Comments0