The Royal Commission Of Inquiry ON The Video Clip Recording Which Contain Images of An Advocate & Solicitor Talking Over The Phone With Regard To The Appointment of Judges
UPDATE: The full text of the written submission has now been relocated to ensure easier navigation of this blog. However, you can still read the recommendations here. For the full written text, please click here.
UPDATE 06-03-08, 5.00 pm: I have received complaints that extraneous characters are appearing in the text of the written submission posted here. I’ll be seeking help to solve this glitch but meanwhile it’s recommended that you use Mozilla Firefox
Both of them denied that they are closed buddies and yet there was evidence of Dato VK Lingam buying expensive gifts for Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam visited Tun Eusoff Chin in his house at late at night un til past mid night on several occasions. There was evidence from Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai that Tun Eusoff Chin used to call Dato’ V K Lingam on his mobile phone and direct line in the office. In fact, Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai (Dato’ V K Lingam’s brother) could have produced more evidence to show extremely closeness between Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam but the Honoourable Commissioner saw it fit to limit Mr Thirunma Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai testimonies to only 4 incidents of extremely closeness when he could have produced more.
….
To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour.
1. ACA TO REOPEN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF TUN EUSOFF CHIN, DATUK V K LINGAM, FORMER AG AND OTHER JUDGES (INCLUDING ONE SITTING JUDGE) IMPLICATED BY THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
The said activities of both Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam must be further investigated by the ACA based on the overwhelming evidence produced at the inquiry. It must be noted that at the material time the then Attorney-General (AG), the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, was heavily implicated in the ACA investigation and yet he saw it fit to clear Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam of other from corruption charges and closed the ACA investigations on the matter. During the Inquiry, photograph was produced as exhibit showing the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was on a holiday trip to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Dato V K Lingam and their respective spouses and then they proceeded to Morocco. Please see: exhibit C-58 [the group photo taken in Spain]. Dato’ V K Lingam has admitted that he went on a holiday to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah.
Therefore, it was most improper for the then AG to close the investigation and clear Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam of charges of corruption and corrupt practices when he was heavily implicated in the said investigation. No one should be a judge of his own cause.
1st Recommendation
Based on the above glaring facts, the Honourable Commissioners are duty bound to make a recommendation that the ACA to reopen its investigations into the charges of corruptions and corrupt practices involving Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam, the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, and other judges like Datuk Mokhtar Sidin, Datuk K L Rekraj and Datuk Low Hop Bing, who is still a sitting judge in the Court of Appeal, as there are more than sufficient evidence to warrant an in-depth investigations into their closed relationship with Dato’ V K Lingam.
- TUN EUSOFF CHIN, TUN AHMAD FIRUZ AND DATO V K LINGAM SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 191 PENAL CODE – GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE/PERJURY.
Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam should be charged for giving false evidence/perjury. There was more than enough evidence to show that both of them have been lying through their teeth when they testified before the Commission. Both of them denied that the New Zealand holidays trip were preplanned and both of them testified that they met by chance in Singapore Changi Airport when there was ample evidence to show otherwise. Air plane tickets (exhibit C-69 [1-15]) for both families of Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin were purchased from the same travel agent, Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd. Many photographs of both families were produced as evidence. Tun Eusoff Chin travel manifest from Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd was sent to Ms Jeyanthi, Dato V K Lingam’s secretary.
Further, in 1998 Tun Eusoff Chin was quoted by the press to have said that he and Dato V K Lingam met each other by chance in a zoo New Zealand.
Tun Ahmad Fairuz should also be charged for giving false evidence/perjury because he also denied that he was closed to Dato V K Lingam and that he was not the person talking at the other end of the line with Dato’ V K Lingam as shown in the video clip. However, Tun Ahmad Fairuz told the Inquiry that it was a monologue conversation because “suara saya tidak boleh di dengar”.
2nd Recommendation
That Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Dato’ V K Lingam should be charged under section 191 of Penal Code for giving false evidence/perjury.
3. ANOTHER ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE SET UPTO INVESTIGATE INTO THE ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION OR CORRUPT PRACTICES OR MISCONDUCTS OF RETIRED JUDDGES AND ONE SITTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.
In exhibit C – 95 there were many more incidents that were prohibited by the Hon Commissioners to tender were:
– sending poison pen letters, magazine entitled “Commercial Litigation – Malaysian Justice on Trial” by Euromoney to Tun Eusoff Chin and other judges house;
– Dato V K Lingam hosted dinner for judges (Tun Eusoff Chin and Tan Sri Lamin Yunus, the retired President of the Court of Appeal) in his house;
– delivering of cakes to Tun Eusoff Chin house;
– sending mobile telephone application forms to a judge house for distribution to other judges and to collect the forms back from judges’ house;
– delivered 3 bowls of soup to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house,
– delivery of a bag to a judge house late at night; and
– many other matters of compromising nature were prohibited from producing before the Inquiry.
3. In the course of the investigation, matters that are not within the so-called purview of the Terms of Reference were either disclosed in evidence or totally bared from tendering before the Inquiry and such matters were of public importance. They are as follows:
Dato Wira Low Hop Bing, a judge in the Court of Appeal
Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai did testify that he delivered a large brown bag to Dato Low Hop Bing house late at night that it was received by Dato Low personally.
Dato Mokhtar Sidin, a retired Judge of the Court of Appeal
In the evidence of Ms Jeyanthi, she has testified that she was present and the secretary were made to type an amended Grounds of Judgment and that Ground of Judgment was subsequently delivered in a floppy disk to Dato Mokhtar Sidin’s house. The said amended Ground of Judgment became the official Ground of Judgment. In this case, the late Mr MCCG Pillai was ordered by Datuk Mokhtar Sidin to pay RM10 million damages to Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai further testified that hand phones totaling five units were handed over to Dato Mokhtar Sidin at his house at the instructions of Dato V K Lingam.
In the evidence of Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kanda Velupillai, he testified that he was detained in a hotel and was forced by the 3 lawyers, Dato C Vijaya Kumar, Dato Kumarendran and Dato Sitambaram to retract the statement that he earlier made to the ACA. This piece of evidence if found to be true tantamount to interfering with the ACA investigation.
3rd Recommendation
I humbly submit that this Commission, which I would call it the MOTHER of all Commissions, should make recommendations that another Royal Commission with independent members with minimum connection with the judiciary should be immediately set up to further investigate into the alleged corruptions or corrupt practices, which evidence were directly or indirectly produced before the Commission, in general in the judiciary and the tampering/interfering with the ACA investigations.
Lastly, a new Royal Commission should also investigate into the fixing of decision of court cases involving Datuk V K Lingam, as the lawyer for the winning party and the judges that were named by Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai, Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Ramachandran in this Inquiry.
Dated 5th March 2008
……………………………
Wee Choo Keong
Counsel for Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai
