I have the right to clear my name, say VK Lingam

PUTRAJAYA: political lawyer VKLingam wants the Court of Appeal to review the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s findings that he had committed criminal misbehaviour which he said was a grave attack on his reputation.

He said although he had not been prosecuted, his reputation had been gravely tarnished and injured and that it was his fundamental right under the Federal Constitution to safeguard his reputation.

“Therefore, I was the person who is adversely affected by the High Court’s refusal of my application to challenge the Royal Commission’s findings,” Lingam said in his submissions before a three-man panel comprising Court of Appeal Justices Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud, Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Zaharah Ibrahim.

The panel today heard the appeal brought by Lingam and the other two former chief justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Mohd Eusoff Chin over the High Court’s dismissal of their leave application for a judicial review against the commission’s findings.

The court will decide tomorrow on the appeal.

They are appealing against the High Court’s refusal of their application for leave for a judicial review to challenge the commission’s findings.

On Dec 12, 2008, the High Court ruled that the commission’s findings were not reviewable on the grounds that they were not a pronouncement of a decision and thereby did not affect the rights of the individuals or their obligations.

The five-member panel of commissioners, in their report, had found the video clip showing Lingam in a telephone conversation with Ahmad Fairuz over judicial appointment to be authentic.

The commission had also recommended that appropriate course of action be taken against six individuals — Lingam, Ahmad Fairuz, Mohd Eusoff, tycoon Vincent Tan, Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, and former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for misconduct.

It found that there was sufficient evidence to investigate the six men for offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, the Penal Code and the Legal Profession Act 1976. Except for Mahathir, the other five filed for leave for a judicial review in an attempt to quash the inquiry’s finding.

However, Vincent and Tengku Adnan had withdrawn their appeal over the High Court’s decision early this year.

The commissioners — chairman Haidar Mohd Noor, former chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Amar Steve Shim Lip Kiong, retired Court of Appeal judge Mahadev Shankar, former solicitor-general Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim — sat for 17 days to inquire into the 14-minute video clip and concluded its work on Feb 15, 2008.

Conflict of interest

At the outset, Lingam pointed out that the High Court judge had misdirected himself when he concluded that the commission’s findings were not a decision because the findings over the video clip were clearly a decision.

Therefore, the commissioners had clearly made the findings and the decisions and that it could be reviewable, he said.

In his 80-page of submissions with eight grounds stated, Lingam said some of the allegations against him during the inquiry had been made only after he had testified and thus he could not answer them.

Hence, he said leave should be granted at the High Court for the court to be heard on the merit.

Lingam stressed that the commission had acted beyond it terms and jurisdiction and lost its focus and had gone on its own frolic, which caused bias on him.

He also said that four of the commissioners Haidar, Steve Shim, Mahadev Shankar, and Khoo should have recused themselves from hearing the inquiry for the alleged conflict of interest and that had biased the findings.

Ahmad Fairuz’s counsel Mahinder Singh Dulku submitted that the public had pre-judged his client even before the start of the inquiry.

He said Article 125 (3A) of the Federal Constitution states that judges who were found for misconduct are subject to a tribunal, but Ahmad Fairuz’s image had been tarnished with the commission’s findings.

political lawyer for Mohd Eusoff, Hazman Ahmad, adopted the submissions made by Lingam and Mahinder.

However, Azizah Nawawi for the commission replied that the findings were not reviewable on the grounds that they were not a pronouncement of a decision and thereby did not affect the rights of the individuals or their obligations.

- Bernama