The royal commission of inquiry probing the scandalous judge-fixing video clip, dubbed as the Lingam tape, today decided not to accept the third segment of the clip which was
 <a href="http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/77505" target="_blank">
 
 revealed
 
 </a>
 on Monday.


 <img align="left" alt="lingam tape hearing 300108 vk lingam 02" height="229" src="http://mk-cdn.mkini.net/109/c7ac9bece49ee70994bac3025a090761.jpg" title="lingam tape hearing 300108 vk lingam 02" width="160"/>
 The new five-minute clip, which opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said came into his possession last Friday, featured lawyer VK Lingam (
 
 photo
 
 ) in a conversation and revealed further allegations of judicial corruption.


 This included explosive allegation of former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah receiving bribes from Lingam and business tycoon Vincent Tan.


 Commissioner Mahadev Shankar however said the commission - which is probing the earlier 14-minute clip - did not see it fit to admit the latest clip as evidence as it was not within the commission&rsquo;s terms of reference.


 The ruling came as lawyers Hazman Ahmad, representing ex-chief justice Mohd Eusoff Chin and M Puravalen, representing Anwar, argued in vain for the commission to admit the video clip.


 In his argument, Hazman said the latest video clip should be admitted as it made direct references to the infamous 1994 New Zealand holiday trip between Eusoff and Lingam.


 &ldquo;The commission has allowed questions on the New Zealand to be asked to prove closeness (between Eusoff and Lingam) even though the trip was not mentioned in the first and second clip,&rdquo; the lawyer argued.


 
 
 Evidence &lsquo;untested&rsquo;
 
 


 <img align="left" alt="lingam tape panel meeting 031007 mahadev shankar" height="254" src="http://mk-cdn.mkini.net/98/07c610822834565f39eb96839380387d.jpg" title="lingam tape panel meeting 031007 mahadev shankar" width="180"/>
 An argument quickly ensued as Mahadev (
 
 photo
 
 ) turned down Hazman&rsquo;s request.


 
 Mahadev:
 
 This is not within our mandate, we are not obliged to consider other material which is not relevant to our inquiry. Why should we look at this?


 
 Hazman:
 
 This is relevant to the terms of reference. The commission has allowed questions on the New Zealand trip to prove closeness and now there is a third video clip which have direct references.


 
 Commission chief Haidar Mohd Noor:
 
 Is the third video clip before us and is it under our terms of reference?


 
 Hazman:
 
 Yes!


 
 Haidar:
 
 One by one first!


 As Hazman reiterated his grounds, Mahadev appeared irritated with his persistence.


 
 Mahadev:
 
 You see the problem? The first clip has been sent to CyberSecurity Malaysia to check on the authenticity and there is a lot of technical questions has to be determined before we allow questions. We stuck to the (existing) terms of reference.


 (
 
 In a raised voice
 
 ) somebody comes out from the air and throw a third video clip at us, why should we look at it? Mr (R) Thayalan, do you have something to say to that? Your client has already taken a position that it might be him, it might not be him, it could be somebody else...


 The commissioner stressed that the latest clip is &ldquo;untested&rdquo; and said the inquiry was not an &ldquo;open-ended thing&rdquo;. He also ordered the transcript of the third video clip which has been tendered before the commission to be withdrawn.


 &ldquo;We are not accepting the third video clip here,&rdquo; Mahadev said.


 <img align="right" alt="royal commission on lingam tape members terms of reference merged 140108" height="699" src="http://mk-cdn.mkini.net/107/1af7cbd88dd870051b6dab390ed35399.gif" title="royal commission on lingam tape members terms of reference merged 140108" width="250"/>
 Puravalen also argued earlier that Anwar was &ldquo;more than willing&rdquo; to appear before the commission to testify on the clips and explained on the commissioners&rsquo; question on why the ex-deputy premier only revealed the clip on Monday.


 The lawyer said there should not be
 
 mala fide
 
 presumption on Anwar&rsquo;s part that he chosen to release the new clip when the commission entered its third week of inquiry.


 &ldquo;It was not within his control,&rdquo; Puravalen told the commission.


 Yesterday, Dzaiddin through his counsel has informed the commission that he was willing to answer any question related to the allegations against him raised in the latest clip.


 
 
 Contempt proceedings mooted
 
 




 Meanwhile, at the outset of today&rsquo;s inquiry, the commission said two articles posted on the Internet, including on online daily
 
 Malaysiakini
 
 , were tantamount to contempt on the ongoing inquiry.


 The first article was a letter written by social reform movement Aliran president P Ramakrishnan titled &lsquo;
 <a href="http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/77572" target="_blank">
 
 Lingam inquiry: We&rsquo;re shocked and devastated
 
 </a>
 &rsquo;, which criticised the commission&rsquo;s decision not to call Anwar and two other PKR leaders as witnesses.


 The second article was a
 
 Malaysiakini
 
 news story titled
 <a href="http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/77587" target="_blank">
 
 &lsquo;Unseen hand&rsquo; manipulating inquiry
 
 </a>
 which was written based on a press conference called by Anwar yesterday which also criticised the commission&rsquo;s decision not allowing him to testify.


 &ldquo;These statements were in contempt of this commission,&rdquo; Mahadev said, as he again read out the commission&rsquo;s ruling last week on why it was not calling the PKR trio.


 He asked lawyers representing Aliran and Anwar to advise their clients accordingly on the commission&rsquo;s ruling and ordered for amendment to be made.


 &ldquo;The only hands we have here are the hands that God has given us. These are the hands that we will use (in conducting the inquiry),&rdquo; Mahadev said.


 The commissioner criticised the statements made in the articles as a &ldquo;sweeping generalisation&rdquo; that the PKR trio has evidence when there was no full and particular evidence.


 &ldquo;So far (for) these three individuals concerned, all we have seen on what they wish to say in this inquiry was contained in a brief submission put up by Puravalen, four or five pages, these references are too skimpy for us to make any proper ruling in the matter.


 &ldquo;If they want to give evidence, we need to be furnished with detailed proof as to what is precisely the evidence they wish to give,&rdquo; Mahadev stressed.


 Puravalen rebutted, saying there was no guideline issued when he was asked to put in the synopsis of his witnesses&rsquo; statement.


 
 
 Inquiry adjourned to next Monday
 
 


 <img align="left" alt="thirunama lingam interview 231107 closeup" height="240" src="http://mk-cdn.mkini.net/103/b2c793c440ef4e4e4d021a431e32162b.jpg" title="thirunama lingam interview 231107 closeup" width="180"/>
 The proceeding today started at 3.20pm and ended at 5pm when the commission decided to adjourn it to next Monday.


 Lingam&rsquo;s brother, Thirunama Karasu (
 
 photo
 
 ) is expected to be called as the last witness when the inquiry resumes next week.


 However, the Malaysian Bar has since informed the commission of its intention to call prominent lawyer Mohd Shafee Abdullah - who is in possession of the New Zealand trip photos&rsquo; negatives - as a witness. Decision is yet to be made on that.


 Today was the 12th day of the hearing.

Lingam tape inquiry
 

The commission says it will not accept as evidence the latest clip which contained further judicial corruption allegations as it is not within the commission terms of reference.

Part 3 of clip rejected as evidence

~RM12

Share

ABOUT

DIGITAL NETWORK

TERMS OF USE

GENERAL LINE

SUBSCRIPTION / TECH SUPPORT

EDITORIAL

LOCATION

RSS FEEDS

DAILY NEWS DIGEST