ACA officer rapped for sloppy work

Lawyers at the royal commission of inquiry into the Lingam tape today interrogated senior Anti-Corruption Agency officer Chuah Lay Choo for failing to conduct a thorough investigation of telephone records.

The senior investigating officer returned before the commission yesterday after taking two weeks' leave to obtain detailed telephone records of lawyer VK Lingam and former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Continuing her testimony today Chuah, 52, admitted that she did not obtain phone numbers of persons closely connected to Ahmad Fairuz (photo), nor did she investigate any written communication relating to the appointment of judges.

She said that she had obtained the phone numbers of Lingam, Ahmad Fairuz, the then deputy minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and business tycoon Vincent Tan from the statements they provided the ACA.

When pressed by businessman Loh Mui Fah’s counsel Americk Singh Sidhu, she said that she had not asked them to volunteer other phone numbers they may have had in 2001.

Pointing to direct references to specific telephone calls in the filmed telephone conversation, Bar Council lawyer Ranjit Singh questioned her on whether she had investigated those alleged telephone calls.

Transcript: Actually I told Tengku Adnan to inform PM, PM to call you for a meeting. But I will organise this so that Tengku Adnan will call you directly. And then I got your number, I will tell him to call you directly to for you to meet PM lah. Ah… So should be okay, then ar… correct, correct, it is very important that the key players must be there.

Chuah then stunned the proceedings by saying that she had already asked witnesses if the conversation took place and took no further steps to verify their evidence.

Ranjit: Now, do you think it was relevant?

Chuah: It is relevant but we had already interviewed witnesses directly if they had this conversation or not.

Ranjit: In all investigations, you’d be investigating potential criminals and not many will admit ... were there steps taken to verify the information?

Chuah: No.

Chuah said that at that point in their investigations, the ACA were still trying to establish whether the conversation featured in the video clip occurred or not.

When questioned about the two lengthy phone calls - 25 minutes and 28 minutes - made from Lingam’s number to Singapore around the time, Chuah said that she did not verify whose number it was or check if Ahmad Fairuz was in Singapore in late December.

She explained that the omission was because she understood that the telephone call featured in the video clip was an incoming call but Ranjit reminded her that the fact was yet to be established as it was merely a witness testimony.

Uncertain dates

Ranjit Singh then reminded Chuah that two weeks prior, the commission had directed her to obtain the telephone records for the entire month of December of 2002.

Yesterday, Chuah tendered Lingam and Ahmad Fairuz’s telephone records on Dec 20, 2001 and found no calls between the two.

Chuah today said: “When I (obtained the records), I concentrated on the date Dec 20, 2001.

“The detailed bills would be for mid-December to early January, starting 18 or 19 December till January,” she added.

Earlier Chuah said that she previously did not know precisely when the video was filmed until businessman Loh Mui Fah testified that his son secretly-filmed the video on Dec 20, 2001.

Chuah also told the inquiry that she was informed that the video clip was made in 2002 when the video was handed to her for investigation.

Ranjit also suggested to her that based on the filmed conversation’s content, the date of the video could have been between Dec 20 and Dec 24.

Ranjit said that former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, whose birthday was on Dec 20, would have 76 that year - which corroborates with a mention in the conversation that “Being the old man, he is 76 years old...”.

He also pointed out that former Court of Appeal president Wan Adnan’s passed away on Dec 24, 2001. Wan Adnan’s deteriorating health condition was also mentioned by Lingam in the clip.

Chuah responded with an approximation of her own, drawing giggles from the audience: “Towards the later part of investigation, we have narrowed down the date from August to February.”

In her defense, she said that the video clip made no mention of Wan Adnan’s death, to which Ranjit said it could have been checked.

Throughout the 90-minute long interrogation, Chuah repeatedly said that she had only focused her efforts on investigating the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz, as directed by her superiors.

Alex de Silva (photo), counsel for the video clip maker Loh Gwo Burne, then asked Chuah to clarify on what she understood her scope of investigation to be.

“To confirm if any corruption, misuse of position or use of influence in the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Court of Appeals president and chief justice,” she responded.

Lingam outed Loh, but not himself

Chuah reluctantly revealed that it was Lingam who had identified the other person featured in the clip as Loh Mui Fah during an interview pertaining to the second portion of the clip.

Coming public for the first time in January, Loh told Malaysiakini that he had been harassed by ACA officers.

Americk: Did you instruct any of your team officers to locate Loh Mui Fah?

Chuah: Yes.

Americk: Out of 26 million Malaysians, why did you pick Loh Mui Fah?

Chuah: Because from investigations we found he was the person who appeared in the second part of the video.

Americk: Who pointed this out to you?

Chuah: Through investigations. (Stuttering)

Haidar: Ya. Who?

Chuah: It was information from VK Lingam.

Haidar: Then say so lah ... don’t hide.

Americk: When VK Lingam identified Loh Mui Fah as the other person in the video, did he at the same time identify himself as being in the clip?

Chuah: He say it appears like him and sounds like him.

Americk: Did he give you Loh Mui Fah’s particulars and was that how you traced him?

Chuah: Yes.

Adjourned to Monday

Meanwhile lawyer Wee Choo Keong (photo) representing Lingam's brother Thirunama Karasu raised several questions as to why Chuah had not read his client's statements to the ACA dated March 8, 12 and 17 of 1998.

Chuah responded that she was focused on obtaining telephone records and when questioned, revealed that she also did not instruct her officers to look into Thirunama's evidence.

In response to commissioner Steve Shim, she said that Thirunama's statement was not relevant to the case she was directed to investigate, chiefly the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz.

Thirunama is expected to testify on Monday after a series of debates within the inquiry as to the relevance of his evidence on the alleged close relationship between Lingam and Eusoff Chin.

The panel, which is in its last days of inquiry, has until mid-March to submit their report and recommendations.