Opposition MP R Sivarasa brought Jayanthi LG Naidu, who is said to be the 'key witness' sought by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in the VK Lingam case, to Parliament today.

This was to disprove Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz's statement yesterday that MACC could not contact a key witness in the probe.

Nazri had said that further investigations into the matter cannot be undertaken by the MACC as the key witness could not be located.

Hence, the anti-graft body had classified the case as 'no further action'.

NONE Jayanthi however claimed that she has been available to assist MACC in their investigations at all times.

"The ACA (now MACC) have at all times been able to contact me earlier for my statement.

"After the announcement (written reply) by Nazri on Oct 23 (that no action would be taken), I called and asked the MACC who the key witness was that they were looking for.

"They were unable to answer me," she told reporters at Parliament.

Jayanthi was Lingam's former secretary at the time of the royal commission's probe into Lingam's alleged involvement in brokering the appointment of judges.

She was called in as a witness by the commission then to testify about a holiday to New Zealand which Lingam and former chief justice Eusoff Chin had taken together.

"I gave a full statement in 1998 regarding this New Zealand trip to the former Anti-Corruption Agency (now MACC), some of which I repeated at the royal commission's proceedings.

"Among the matters I told the ACA and the royal commission were that Lingam and Chin's family holiday trip to New Zealand in 1994 was planned and paid for by Lingam," she said.

eusoff chin vk lingam new zealand trip photos 240108 front "On the instruction of Lingam, I had assisted in the bookings and payments for their air tickets in accordance with their itinerary," reiterated Jayanthi, adding that the documents and photographs pertaining to the trip have been submitted to the MACC.

Nazri told Parliament yesterday that MACC investigations showed that it was not a coincidence as both had used the same travel agent.

However, the commission found that no crime has been committed as both parties had paid for their own respective holidays and that further investigations cannot be undertaken as a key witness could not be located.

The MACC and Nazri had both refused to name the witness that could not located.

"His (Lingam's) actions can undermine and erode the integrity of the judiciary, but things must be viewed from a legal perspective... moral and legal must be separated," Nazri had said, adding that they don't actually know if Lingam had instructed the appointment of a certain judge.

Lingam told the royal commission set up to probe the matter in 2007 that he was not the man in the video.

Reopen investigation

The opposition hoped that the MACC and the relevant authorities would re-think their decision not to pursue the matter and reinvestigate the case.

Jayanthi also said that during her term as Lingam's assistant, she has witnessed a judgment with the word "correction" in Lingam's handwriting being prepared in the office.

"In my evidence before the royal commission I also described how the judgment delivered by Mokhtar Sidin in the Vincent Tan vs MGG Pillai 's libel case was written in the office of Lingam.

"I was among the various staff present in the office assisting in the process of photostating and looking for the cases," said Jayanthi, adding that even documents relating to this matter were submitted to the MACC.

"I'm also aware of several incidents in Lingam's office where Lingam and other lawyers have also written or assisted in the writing of draft judgments," she said, although she was not directly involved in the process.

NONE Furthermore, she also said that on various occasions, she had withdrawn large sums of cash between RM100,000 and RM300,000 under Lingam's instructions.

"Which I then wrapped in gift boxes with the understanding that they were to be hand-delivered by others to individual judges.

"On one occasion I saw one of these money boxes being placed with a box containing a cake to be delivered to a judge," she said.

Despite the commission's recommendation to conduct fresh investigations into the case, authorities closed two of the investigation documents and another was marked as 'no further action'.

Meanwhile, Sivarasa said the government was trying to cover up the case as he had no problems locating one of the key witness, who is Jayanthi.

"The government from the beginning, never intended or possessed the political will to take measures to reform the judiciary," he said.

He added that there was no other avenues for the MPs to push for the case and hoped that public feedback could coerce the authorities to reinvestigate the matter.