The five-member royal commission set up to probe the ‘VK Lingam’ video has failed to get the thumbs-up from lawyers.

The lawyers are not convinced about the credibility of certain commission members, including its chair former chief judge of Malaya Haidar Mohamed.

Questions were also raised over the commission’s ‘narrow’ terms of reference.

Apart from Haidar, the commission comprises former chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Steve Shim, former Court of Appeal judge Mahadev Shankar, former solicitor-general Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and historian and Suhakam commissioner Prof Khoo Kay Kim.

Prime Minister Department's Legal Affairs Division head Abdullah Sani Hamid will act as the commission secretary.

Malaysiakini spoke to several lawyers to get their views on the matter. This is what they had to say:

Latheefa Koya, human rights lawyer

Haidar has already headed the previous Cabinet appointed three-men panel of inquiry (to probe the authenticity of the video) and the three reports they came up with were not made public but were only submitted to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. This means that nobody knows what the reports contained and Haidar’s report could have been in favour of the government and it would be advantageous for the government to reappoint Haidar.

Besides that, Haidar was also involved in the 1988 judicial crisis which puts the entire royal commission under heavy scrutiny pertaining to its independence.

As for the royal commission’s terms of reference, it is disappointing to see that the scandalous accusation made by VK Lingam’s brother was not included as part of the key issue the royal commission should investigate.

I feel that the terms of reference in general is rather narrow for it did not include the much needed solid measures to overhaul the confidence of the public towards the judiciary which is already viewed as corrupt by the members of the public.

Edmund Bon, chairperson of the Bar Council’s Human Rights Committee

I don’t understand why is there a need to revisit the authentication of the tape process again. The Haidar panel have all agreed that the tape is authentic. Both Haidar and Mahadev were members of the three-men panel and on principle grounds, they cannot be part of the royal commission set up as they would surely have formed their opinion.

As for the terms of reference, I think it’s too narrow. They should include investigation on the independence of the judiciary as a whole. I hope that the commission will do it through an open hearing so it will be as transparent as possible.

Amer Hamzah, deputy chairperson of the Bar Council’s Human Rights Committee

I am a bit surprised that Haidar and Mahadev are in the line-up as they were already involved in the three-men panel previously. As far as I’m concerned, the independence of these two are questionable because the report they came up with were not made public and could be in favour of those with vested interest.

I don’t understand why are there no members of the Bar in the line-up. If de facto Law Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said that Bar members cannot be a part of the line-up as the tape involves a member of the Bar, then why appoint former judges?

One of the ways the royal commission can project an unquestionable image of independence is by hiring retired judges with supreme integrity from other commonwealth nations but this is not done.

As for the terms of reference, I don’t understand why is there a need to authenticate the tape again when the three-men panel, led by Haidar himself, had verified that the tape was indeed authentic.

It also does not mention anything about probing the names mentioned in the tape which I believe is essential to unravel. The studies to look into the prospect of setting the much sought after Independent Commission on the Appointment of Judges too were not included in the terms of reference. If this is looked into, the question of dubious ‘fixed’ appointment of judges would not even be an issue anymore.