Vexed opposition parliamentarians today bombarded de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz with questions when he stressed on the importance of verifying the authenticity of the VK Lingam video.

According to him, an 'unverified evidence equals to a poison-pen letter'.

In his winding up speech on the debate on Supply Bill 2008, Nazri told the Dewan Rakyat that the authenticity of the tape must be verified before any further action can be taken

However, his statement did not go well with the opposition MPs.

Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang questioned Nazri as to why the government is practising double standards.

Elaborating, he said the government did not check the authenticity of the controversial Negarakuku clip before suggesting that legal action be taken against its creator, 24-year-old student Wee Meng Chee.

"Many MPs in this very Dewan suggested for his citizenship to be stripped for a video clip he aired in YouTube. If we do not need to verify the authenticity of the Negarakuku video clip, why do we need to verify the authenticity of the Lingam tape?" he asked.

Different issues

Responding, Nazri, who is also minister in the prime minister's department, said there was a vast difference between Wee's video and the Lingam tape.

"We let the police handle the Negarakuku case, and the public were not against it. However, the same public will be suspicious of the government's intention if we let the police handle the Lingam tape. That is why we gave the case to an independent panel," said Nazri (BN-Padang Renggas).

"We do not want the government to interfere in this issue. That's why we did not let the attorney-general, police, ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) handle this case.

"Furthermore, this is a three-man panel, and I'm sure they would not want their professionalism to be compromised for anything," he added.

Nazri also said that he was not aware if the panel had used experts to verify the authenticity of the tape.

He also claimed to be in the dark on whether the panel's findings will be made public, but stressed that he would "strongly argue for the findings to be furnished to the people."

Replying to Karpal Singh's (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) query as to why the ACA requires the original copy of the video clip when the edited version is sufficient to verify its authenticity, Nazri said: "Technology is in such an advanced state now that anyone could edit a video easily if he or she wishes to do so. That is the reason why we need to look at the original tape."

The tape, released by opposition PKR last month, shows senior lawyer Lingam discussing judicial appointments with purportedly Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Ahmad Fairuz later issued a denial of his involvement through Nazri.

What's the problem?

The minister today also explained why the chief justice chose to issue a denial through him.

"He can't come forward to Parliament to deny his involvement as that is prohibited by our laws. Thus he wrote to me and said that he was not the person implicated in the tape. What's the problem in him doing so? I didn't influence him," Nazri said.

He further explained that if it is improper for the executive to interfere in the judiciary, this also applies to the legislative (Parliament).

Responding, Karpal said Nazri has misinterpreted Article 127 of the Federal Constitution which provides that the conduct of a judge of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal or High Court cannot be discussed in either House of Parliament except on a substantive motion. Notice of that motion has to be given by at least a quarter of the members of that House.

He also asked if the government truly practiced separation of powers as the independent panel set up to probe the Lingam tape is also aided by the ACA, which comes under the government.

"And if ACA wants to advice the panel, it has done so publicly by giving statements to the press that the video clip is an inadmissible evidence if its authenticity could not be verified," said Karpal.

Nazri explained that even though the panel takes ACA's advice, it does not mean that it is forced to act on the advice as it is an independent panel.

He also urged the public with information on the tape to come forward and testify. He said that although there is no specific Act to protect the whistleblowers, the government will use other means to provide protection for them.

"We have four or five Acts that enable us to give protection to these people," he claimed.