Lingam committing sedition with the help of the Courts!

Lingam on holiday with Eusoff Chin?!?

Two former chief justices Eusoff Chin and Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim along with lawyer VK Lingam have obtain leave (permission) from the appellate court to challenge the findings of the royal commission on the 'Lingam-gate' incident.

Justice Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud and Zaharah Ibrahim ruled in Lingam's favour while Justices Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled against it.

Tengku Baharudin

Zaharah Ibrahim

In May 2008, the inquiry findings had recommended investigation by the authorities on six individuals including the trio over their roles in fixing the appointment of top judges. The others were tycoon Vincent Tan, Umno secretary-general and then minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

(from left to right: Mahathir, Eusoff Chin, Tengku Adnan, Lingam, AhmadFairus: Top: Vincent Tan)

Low point in Malaysia's judiciary

Dubbed the 'Lingam tape saga', the disclosure in Sept 2007 by Anwar Ibrahim of a video recording of Lingam in a phone conversation with Fairuz over the brokering of senior judges was one of the lowest points in Malaysia's judicial history after the removal of former lord president Salleh Abbas and four other senior judges in 1988. The royal panel, which called a total of 21 witnesses to testify, found:

• the video clip was authentic;
  
• Lingam was engaged in a phone conversation with Fairuz in the presence of businessman Loh Mui Fah and his son Gwo-Burne (now Kelana Jaya parliamentarian), who took the video;

• Lingam had directly influenced the elevation of judges, including the appointment of Fairuz as president of the Court of Appeal and, possibly, the latter's further appointment as chief justice;
• Lingam to have asked Tan and Adnan to be actively involved in the appointment of judges, in particular the appointment of Fairuz as chief judge of Malaya and subsequently, president of the Court of Appeal;
  
• The phone conversation indicated Lingam's "uncanny knowledge" of what could be considered as matters classified as being under the Official Secrets Act; and

• Adnan could have been Lingam's 'source' in the Prime Minister's Department.

Lingam's Defence

Lingam, who represented himself yesterday, had submitted that he has a right to clear his name (through the judiciary).

However members of the judiciary (judges) should be the last ones qualified to judge because this corruption case involves the judiciary itself!

How much integrity is there for the judges to tell the world that Lingam is innocent when they themselves are corrupted?

This decision by the court of appeal (allowing Lingam to challenge the findings of the royal commission) has made a mockery of justice and it has set a dangerous precedent.

Is the Court of Appeal now saying that the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over a Royal Commission of Inquiry?

The RCI's powers are derived from a specific Act of Parliament, the Commission of Inquiry Act 1950. It is not an inferior tribunal or administrative body that is amenable to judicial review.

The RCI reports directly to the King. It merely makes recommendations and findings based on its terms of reference and after considering the evidence.

The Government then decides on whether to give effect to the recommendations and findings of the RCI.

These recommendations and findings are not binding on the Government and they do not have the force of law.

They are subject to implementation or enforcement by the Government. Therefore, the recommendations and findings of the RCI being non-binding in nature and not enforceable in law cannot be termed as a decision that affects the rights of aggrieved or interested parties.

Lingam right to be heard should have been at the Royal Commission and not by the courts who are clearly part of the scandal!

By challenging the Royal Commission that was carried out under the King’s order, isn't Lingam committing sedition! It is for the King to accept the findings of the RCI and not Lingam.

If the King does not like the findings, the King can choose to reject the findings! Who is Lingam to challenge this findings?

Under section 3(1) of the Sedition Act, a seditious tendency are acts with a tendency:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government

I agreed with Kapal Singh, Lingam should be prosecuted for sedition, for bringing the judiciary to disrepute and breaching professional conduct stipulated under the Legal Profession Act and now for challenging the King's findings!

Source from Malaysiakini