Lawyer VK Lingam has denied he had been talking on the phone with then chief judge of Malaya - and later chief justice - Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in the infamous conversation on alleged brokering of judicial appointments.

“I don’t know who I was speaking to but certainly I wasn’t speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his telephone number and he never had my telephone number either,” he told the royal commission of inquiry tasked with investigating the authenticity of the clip.

The commission chief, former chief judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor ( photo ), was apparently taken by surprise with Lingam’s reply and asked him again: “You don’t know who?”

"Looking at the video, there's a bottle of wine, bottle of whisky, bottle of brandy, and a bottle of 7-Up. That was a drinking session, a celebration, a party. I must have had one too many (and) it is more than six years ago. I cannot remember."

Asked again later about the telephone conversation, Lingam insinuated that he could be drunk.

"It looks, from the video, that there was a drinking session or a party, I may have had one too many drinks."

Lingam, the star witness, was testifying on Day 6 of the inquiry today. He is said to be at the centre of the 14-minute grainy video clip, which shows a man talking on a mobile phone allegedly with Ahmad Fairuz in December 2001.

Asked to confirm whether it was him, Lingam would only say that the person “looks like me and sounds like me”.

“You can ask me the question 100 times, I will still give you the same answer,” he said in a raised voice when Anti-Corruption Agency deputy public prosecutor Nordin Hassan repeated the question.

Lingam, 57, (right in photo) who was clad in a black suit and red-stripped tie, took the stand at 12.30pm as the 13th witness, immediately after the video-maker Loh Gwo Burne completed testifying.

The senior lawyer was all smiles as he entered the inquiry room at the Jalan Duta court complex and then took the oath, with his hand raised high.

Speaking loudly, as he typically does, he appeared to be composed throughout. He did not display much interest when the 14-minute video clip was played for him to confirm a point raised by Nordin.

Lingam had earlier been called into the room during the testimony of Gwo Burne, who identified him as the person in the footage recorded.

The conversation, as captured on the video clip, revolved around the urgent need to get Ahmad Fairuz appointed as Court of Appeal president (No 2) and then Chief Justice (No 1).

There was also a plan to get former attorney-general Mokhtar Abdullah, then a Federal Court judge, to replace Ahmad Fairuz as No 3.

To do that, Lingam had allegedly roped in business tycoon Vincent Tan, a close crony of Mahathir, and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, then a key minister in the PM’s Department and currently tourism minister. They were to talk to Mahathir on the appointments.

Tan has yet to testify but Tengku Adnan denied any involvement last week, saying that Lingam must have been “mad or drunk” to have mentioned his name in the conversation.

When asked, Lingam denied he had ever tried to influence judicial appointments.

"I never influenced anybody in the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as chief judge of Malaya, president of Court of Appeals or chief justice. I have never spoken to the former prime minister on the appointment of judges."

Contradictory testimony

In his testimony, Lingam also attempted to disassociate himself from the footage by insisting on the original video-clip being submitted to the commission.

He said he would not go beyond conceding the point that the person in the clip “looks like me” until the original video clip is produced.

Lingam confirmed that he knows both Tan and his then business partner Tengku Adnan ( left ).

He said his law firm is a panel lawyer for Tan's Berjaya Group, while he has done personal legal work for the tycoon since 1991. He has known Tengku Adnan since 1990 when the latter was executive director of Berjaya Group.

However, Lingam firmly denied that businessman Loh Mui Fah was his client, as had been claimed.

“He has never been my client, let’s make that clear, I have documents to establish that, but his father was my client once,” he said, contradicting Mui Fah’s testimony.

Lingam also said both Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne ( photo ), had been to his house “three to four times”, which differed from their testimony that they had only been to the house once.

When continuing his testimony after the lunch break, he denied knowledge of all events mentioned in the video clip, answering “I don’t recollect having said this” to almost all 21 sections of the transcript raised by Nordin.

Commissioner Mahadev Shankar then asked: “I just want to clarify. You said that you ‘do not recall having said that’. That leaves it open for inference that you might have said this but cannot remember. Is that possible?”

Replied Lingam: “Yes, it might be possible. (It has been) six years. I cannot remember.”

Asked how he had obtained confidential information about the appointment of High Court judges, Lingam said that this was based on speculation among lawyers.

“Sometime in October 2001, I (heard this) from lawyers who attended hearings in courts ... We discuss who is being appointed or promoted. I heard gossip ... subsequently in late December 2001, I heard that two of them, Dr Andrew Chui and Zainuddin Ismail, were rejected.”

The video-clip depicts the person in the telephone conversation as having access to this information, which is mentioned in confidential correspondence exchanged by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah.

When pressed by Nordin and the commissioners to name his sources, Lingam replied: “I talk to so many lawyers. I cannot remember.”

Relationship with the Lohs

Lingam was again asked about his relationship with Loh.

“I make it absolutely clear. Loh Mui Fah was never my client, I never gave him any legal advice. I want to make it crystal clear. Show me documents. Show me any paper,” said a visibly upset Lingam.

According to Lingam, Loh had been to his office to discuss business matters and had visited his house “as a social friend”.

Loh's lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu then produced an affidavit dated July 31, 2001 stating that Loh had accompanied his father Loh Kim Fong, 94, to Kuala Lumpur to meet with lawyers R Thayalan and Lingam and lawyers from the Cheang and Ariff law firm.

Lingam denied seeing the Lohs, adding that they had only met with Thayalan who was working for him at the time. He also denied a suggestion later by Alex de Silva, who is representing Gwo Burne, that the two had met to discuss legal matters.

Later when asked who had provided the alcohol, Lingam replied that Loh usually brought "three to six bottles of red wine and one to two bottles of whisky or brandy" during visits to his house.

“He (Loh) insists we drink, so just to accommodate him, we drink,” Lingam said.

The session then moved to issues related to the admissibility of events prior to the recording of the footage, with Thayalan seeking to expunge all testimony relating to the purported close relationship between Lingam and former chief justice Eusoff Chin.

Transcript of testimony: 'It looks like me, it sounds like me'