The government should set up an independent commission of inquiry to reveal the 'true facts' behind the payment of millions of ringgit to a former Cheras toll concessionaire after it was taken over by Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd, a company owned by one of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin's protege, Halim Saad.

Former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim said today such an inquiry would be the best avenue to look into the allegations raised by the Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram who on Thursday claimed Halim Saad and his former business partner Anuar Othman, under the patronage of Daim, had siphoned of RM32.5 million from Metramac.

"In light of these allegations in the ruling and the counter allegations made by Halim, the time is ripe for the government to hold an inquiry into the matter," Anwar said in a statement through his lawyer Sankara Nair.

Gopal made the allegation in a ruling in which he awarded about RM65 million to construction company Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd for compensation for the loss of advertising rights in a suit against Metramac over the privatisation of a number of roads.

The judgment sparked critical media reports and comments from the public which led Halim to issue a nine-page statement yesterday in which he rebutted all the allegations.

The prominent businessman denied that he and Anuar had siphoned the money and rebutted Gopal's allegations that they had patronage of Daim who had allegedly conspired in oppressing Fawziah Holdings in relation to the Cheras toll concession.

Halim said Gopal had choses to condemn him, Anuar and Daim who were not given the opportunity to defend themselves in the proceedings at the Court of Appeal.

Attempts to get comments from Gopal at his chambers at the Putrajaya's Palace of Justice failed. The judge declined repeated requests for meeting with members of the press.

Meanwhile, Sankara told malaysiakini that he was aware that Halim had mentioned Anwar's name as the finance minister who oversaw the February 1992 revised concession agreement between Metramac (its new shareholders) and the Kuala Lumpur mayor.

"He, however, prefers to study the original statement before making his response," said the lawyer.

Public hearing proposal

Echoing Anwar's call for clarity, parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang said Halim, Daim and ex-Kuala Lumpur mayor Elyas Omar should offer to appear for a public hearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee of Feb 13 to tell their side of the story.

He said although the committee was not an investigative body and had no powers to summon witnesses, the trio should seriously consider the proposal to set a good example of ethics and integrity concerning their public and corporate governance.

He assured that the committee would not touch on the legality of the RM32.5 million payment as the matter was still under appeal but the hearing may answer the questions of integrity raised by the court's judgment.

"Malaysians are entitled to answers as to why the cabinet at that time approved such an opaque and convoluted process for Halim and Anuar to take over Metramac after the Cheras toll protest led by DAP parliamentarian for Cheras Tan Kok Wai in September 1990."

He said that the trio must be able to address the relevant questions which include:

  • When and why did the cabinet make the decision for Halim and Anuar to take over Metramac;

  • Were Halim and Anuar acting in personal capacities or as agents or trustees for someone else?;

  • Who made the decision on the payments of RM32.5 milion and RM756 million as referred to the judgment; and

  • Whether the payment instructions were made before or after Daim resigned as finance minister on March 14, 1991.

    • Contempt poser

    Commenting on Halim's statement that he had '... made certain conclusions without further investigation', Transparency International Malaysian Chapter president Param Cumaraswamy denied this was so when he (Param) commented on Gopal's judgment.

    "In my statement, I called for investigations to be carried out by the office of the attorney-general and by the Anti-Corruption Agency over the findings of the Court of Appeal."

    "At no point in the statement did I draw conclusions. If I had, I would not have called for investigations by the competent authorities," said Param when contacted.

    On a related issue, Sankara Nair said that Halim' statement was uncalled for considering that there is an avenue of appeal for him to clarify his position.

    "The statement clearly borders on contempt as it made direct insinuations against a respectable senior judge. I think the Court of Appeal would know what to do but I believe that he (Halim) should be issued a show-cause order as to why he should not be cited for contempt of court."

    Param - who is also a lawyer by profession - agreed stating that Halim's statement '... may have gone a little too far in the manner in which he criticised the judgement'.

    "He admitted that the matter was still under the process of appeal. On one hand he gave the impression that the media was in contempt to comment on the ruling, but he himself went ahead to criticise the judgment. It appears to have contradictions," said Param.

    Official complaint?

    However, lawyer Shafee Abdullah - who represented Metramac at the Court of Appeal stage - defended Halim stating that there was nothing contemptuous about his statement.

    "He has not shown any disrespect to the court. He has not said anything that would lower respect for the court. From what I read, he was criticising the judgment where he said there were glaring errors of factual findings."

    "He merely wanted to put the record straight. Moreover, he only made the statement after there had been so much public debate. The issue was widely publicised in spite of the fact that we (who are representing Metramac) are appealing to the Federal Court."

    Shafee said he also believed that Halim was badgered by the intense criticisms against him as reported in the media into making his statement.

    "The longer he waits and does not clarify the situation, his reputation both nationally and internationally would be irreparably ruined. I think he was merely taking steps to protect his reputation."

    Asked if there was instructions for him to lodge an official complaint with the chief justice on Gopal's conduct, Shafee said 'no'.

    "But I am not ruling out such possibility. I will not be surprised if there is such instruction in the future."

    Advertising rights

    In his judgment, Gopal had ordered Metramac to pay about RM65 million to Fawziah Holdings in compensation for loss 'of advertising rights'. Fawziah Abdul Karim and her mother Maimon Bee, owners of Fawziah Holdings, were the former owners of Syarikat Teratai KG (STKG) Sdn Bhd, now known as Metramac.

    In July 1986, Fawziah procured a road privatisation tender but toll collection for these roads was suspended in September 1990 following a public outcry with demonstrations at the Cheras toll plaza.

    Compensation amounting to RM764 million was sought by STKG for loss of toll collection but Gopal said that in 1990, Daim, as the finance minister then, had said the government could not afford to pay STKG any compensation.

    Metro Juara then bought out STKG for RM97.5 million. Halim and Anuar Othman were the shareholders of Metro Juara, later renamed Metramac. Following this, the government then paid the compensation due to STKG.