Many will agree that the royal commission to investigate the Lingam tape scandal turned out to be a right royal circus. Riveting, but a circus nevertheless. After all, the basic issue being investigated was impropriety in the judiciary such as ‘case-fixing’ and influencing the appointment of judges, as revealed by the tapes.

It was therefore imperative that members of the commission and the counsel conducting the investigations be above reproach. Yet instances of impropriety have been revealed to exist among certain commissioners and the counsel.

News emerged that the commission’s chairperson Haidar Mohd Noor was not eligible to be a member let alone the chairperson because he is related to one of the witnesses. What is most astonishing is that this personage - who has been used to dispensing justice and should know all the rules - refused to withdraw from the commission. More unbelievable, the learned counsel acting for Bar Council did not protest!

Secondly, the bombshell by VK Lingam himself that the counsel for the Bar Council, Robert Lazar, had approached him to speak to the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad for a position as an appeals court judge, astounded us.

Of course Lazar was quick to deny and dismiss the allegation as baseless. All the same, he should have disqualified himself.

According to what was revealed during the proceedings, the case involving Insas was quoted as one of the cases where alleged ‘case-fixing’ may have occurred. Shearn Delamore and Co., of which Lazar is a partner, is being retained by Insas as their advocate and solicitor. Is not this grounds enough for the disqualification of Lazar as acting as counsel for the Bar Council?

As Lazar has not acted to disqualify himself, the Bar Council should have done so. It is difficult to believe that the Bar Council did not know about the link between Insas, Shearn Delamore and Lazar before the onset of this case. This is a sad reflection on the way the Bar Council functions to ensure fair play in areas relating to the judiciary and the law in the country.

Judicial propriety, ethics and decorum - which are the crux of this inquiry - demands that judges and counsel involved must be above any shadow of reproach, bias or taint. But this cardinal principle of judicial conduct is being sidestepped with impunity by Haidar, Lazar and the Bar Council.

At least the Bar Council should have admitted its mistake and remedied the situation speedily and restored some semblance of respectability to the proceedings and the judicial scene in Malaysia.