IT HAS fallen short of the expectations of most Malaysians who wanted a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the eight-minute video clip said to involve a prominent lawyer chatting with a senior judge to broker the appointment of judges.
A three-man independent panel headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor has been formed to probe the authenticity of the video clip.
Those who favour a Royal Commission of Inquiry have said that it will have wider powers to gather evidence while others argue that the independent panel is sufficient to carry out the investigation.
But an important step has been taken. Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan has put on record that she has faith in Haidar and the other two members, social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, saying all three are of the highest integrity. The Bar Council, she said, is prepared to cooperate with the panel.
The respect accorded to the panel is important because what Malaysians are interested in is to know the identity of the lawyer in the clip and whether the conversation was real.
The wheels of justice have also taken a step further with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail saying the Anti-Corruption Agency has been directed to record a statement from Datuk V.K. Lingam, the lawyer implicated in the video clip.
Lingam will be required to verify the authenticity of the clip and almost certainly be asked whether he is the man in the video clip, as claimed by those who released it.
Lingam is said to be overseas on a business trip in Europe and has not responded to calls from the media, who wanted him to respond to the allegations.
Those who cry for justice, many with the best of intentions because of their growing frustrations with the system, must also allow those implicated to defend themselves. That is what justice is all about.
Do not forget that many of us were quick to believe the allegation that it was a Chinese national who was forced to do nude squats and captured on video. Malaysian officials hurriedly apologised to Beijing while talk shows in Taiwan and Hong Kong condemned Malaysia. In the end, she turned out to be Malaysian, creating plenty of red faces.
Let’s not be too impulsive, even if we seem quite sure of what we have seen. Sometimes, it is best we do not assume too much.
Another important point: seven years ago, Lingam was pictured with then Chief Judge of Malaya Tun Eusoff Chin while on a holiday trip to New Zealand in 1994, which created a storm. There were plenty of insinuations, which led to Eusoff threatening to sue anyone who claimed the trip was paid for.
He showed credit card bills and bank statements for the trip, adding that he had met many lawyers and students who wanted to have photographs taken with him.
“Judges are not robots. Judges are human beings. They have to have friends. When they die, their friends will have to bury them. Only people without relatives and friends will be buried by, maybe, the hospital authorities,” he told reporters in 2000.
There are many defence arguments in the present case – no one is sure whether there is a judge chatting on the other side as there has been a denial. The person could claim he was merely bragging while the video clip itself could have been edited by the opposition.
It has not helped that those named in the video clip have preferred not to respond to the allegations. The judge implicated has denied talking to the lawyer, through de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz.
By keeping silent, those implicated have allowed the controversy to drag on and Malaysian lawyers cannot be blamed for being angry because the integrity and credibility of the judiciary is at stake.
It would be foolish to dismiss the march involving the more than 2,000 lawyers, activists and the public as, in the words of Nazri, “unbecoming.” Nazri also shot down the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister asking that a permanent judicial commission be in charge of judicial appointments.
The march certainly was not spontaneous, as claimed by a Bar Council official, as transportation was organised and prior notices given. But the point is that no one should ignore a protest by a multi-racial group of professionals, who cut across all political affiliations.
The protest would probably include members and supporters of Barisan Nasional component parties, who have expressed their displeasure at the judiciary and have demanded for quick intervention to restore confidence. It has remained an issue since the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President in 1988.
It is understandable that Putrajaya would prefer a delegation instead of 2,000 people on the streets to voice their unhappiness. And surely, they do not want such large-scale protests to happen again but it is imperative that the leadership hear these voices.
There is no need for politicians to always adopt a partisan stand to any dissenting opinion, particularly if it can be accommodated for the good of the country.
In all fairness, too, we must commend Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for his willingness to quickly order an investigation by the independent panel.
Note from the Webmaster:
In response to this comment, a letter was published in The Star on Tuesday October 2, 2007
Nazri explains statement on ‘lawyer’s protest’
WHAT I like about your paper is because it has been very fair to me. Once again, I seek your forbearance to allow me to explain my statement about “Lawyer’s protest” which was quoted and commented upon by Wong Chun Wai in his recent article.
Fundamental to the concept of an independent judiciary is the non-interference of either the executive or the legislative in the judiciary.
I believe this was the reason the lawyers in Pakistan protested, because there was interference by the executive in the judiciary when President Gen Pervez Musharraf sacked the CJ of Pakistan.
However, in Malaysia, it is the other way around. Lawyers took to the streets to ask the executive to interfere in the judiciary. They were asking the Prime Minister to take action against the CJ.
Hence the term “unbecoming” used by me in describing the action of the lawyers.
As to the immediate dismissal of their proposal, it is only because I have dealt with this matter earlier with the members of the Bar, including attending a forum organised by them on the same issue; and on both occasions I have said the stand of the government is No.
Also, as an insider, I do know the Government is comfortable with the present arrangement in appointing judges as accorded by the Constitution, coupled by the Prime Minister’s stance of keeping at arm’s length decisions made by judges.
The Deputy Prime Minister has also said there is no necessity at the moment to form a Royal Commission to appoint and promote judges.
I have always been direct, and see no point in giving hope when there is none.
I have been informed there are 13,000 registered members of the Bar, and 1,000 protesting lawyers is hardly a majority; and compared with the 10,000,000 voters, it is a drop in the ocean.
I believe the opposition will make an election issue out of this. Let us wait for the people to decide in the coming general election.
I do not know whether I am right or wrong but if I do err, I am very sure it is on the right side.
MOHAMED NAZRI ABDUL AZIZ,
Minister in The Prime Minister’s Department.
