It is shocking that the royal commission probing the scandalous judge-fixing video clip has decided not to call Anwar Ibrahim.Anwar was the one who first revealed the scandalous tapes and it is strange that his evidence has become irrelevant to the inquiry.
What commission is this - Royal or BN?
Why waste the tax payers' money and wasting everybody's time with such an inquiry when the the "match is fixed"?who are the bookies
Now another video clip is released.How many more are there?Looks like we are in for more entertainment by more top personalities testifying in more such BN Royal Commissions.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Commission: No need for Anwar to testify
Beh Lih Yi Malaysiakini Jan 28, 08 11:29am
The royal commission probing the scandalous judge-fixing video clip today decided not to call PKR’s de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim as a witness at this stage.
Two other PKR leaders - R Sivarasa and Sim Tze Tzin - have also been told that they would not be needed to testify.
Commission chairperson Haidar Mohd Noor (photo) said that the evidence to be given by these witnesses were not directly linked to the inquiry.
“Given the evidence produced thus far, we do not therefore see the need at this stage to call Anwar, Sivarasa and Sim since their proposed evidence do not go directly to the matters of the
inquiry,” Haidar said.
The decision was conveyed by Haidar at the outset of today’s inquiry after the five-member commission had considered submissions last Friday by the PKR trio’s lawyer M Puravalen on why they should testify.
Anwar first revealed the explosive clip - featuring lawyer VK Lingam talking on the phone - in September last year which prompted outrage among public and within the legal fraternity.
New video clip
Puravalen today told the commission that Anwar’s presence was essential as the ex-deputy premier has in his possession a new video clip on judicial scandal.
Haidar later instructed the counsel to submit a copy of the clip to the commission first.
Last week Anwar questioned as to why the commission was delaying in calling him as a witness, especially when he had been subpoenaed by the commission.
In addition to giving new evidence to the commission, Anwar said it was crucial for him to testify since his name was mentioned in the video clip.
Similarly, the commission also said it did not plan to call the two ‘secret witnesses’ offered by Anwar to testify at this juncture.
The duo are Lingam’s younger brother, Rajendram Vellupillai and former Bank Negara assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalid, both believed to be able to prove Lingam’s alleged closeness with judges and provide more evidence on judicial corruption.
“We (the commission) take the view that (Rajendram’s) evidence and related statement is merely supporting what Thirunama Karasu is going to testify,” Haidar said in referring to another brother of Lingam.
On Abdul Murad, fellow commissioner Mahadev Shankar asked Puravalen to furnish more details on the witness’ evidence as the current material are inadequate for consideration.
‘Beyond casual relationship’
On Thirunama, Mahadev said the commission will only allow several parts out of his 21-page witness statement to be accepted as evidence.
This included the allegations that Lingam had intended to purchase a house for then chief justice Mohd Eusoff Chin, that he sent files to Eusoff’s house at the late hours and his purchase of handphone, wallet and handbag for the ex-chief justice.
Explaining the commission’s decision, Mahadev said the evidence could be relevant to show Lingam and Eusoff’s ties - even after their infamous 1994 New Zealand trip - “continued far beyond a casual relationship”.
Both Lingam and Eusoff have told the commission that they merely bumped into each other in New Zealand. Eusoff also said his relationship with Lingam was not ‘extremely’ close.
For the majority parts of Thirunama’s statement which are not admitted, Mahadev said the reasons, among others, are that they are of defamatory nature and has little value to the inquiry.
The commission also said it was “not keen” at this point to grant Lingam’s lawyer R Thayalan’s application to call in two UK-based audio and video analysis experts to testify before the commission to challenge the report prepared by CyberSecurity Malaysia.
Instead, Haidar asked Thayalan to tender the reports by the two experts first.
A digital expert from CyberSecurity, a government-linked agency, has confirmed the authenticity of the video clip earlier.
Recovering the original footage
Meanwhile, in a two-paragraph statement issued at the sidelines of the inquiry, businessman Loh Mui Fah said he has yet to see the new video clip released by Anwar today, apparently taken on the same evening as the first 14-minute-video clip.
"I have asked Gwo Burne to do everything possible to recover (the original) recording," he said, in referring to his son.
Last week, Gwo Burne has confirmed he recorded the 14-minute clip with a powerful camera in 2001.
1 comment:
Anwar denied the opportunity to testify in the RCI reveals the 3rd segment to keep alive the goings on in the judiciary. What is more interesting is the testimony of Ahmad Fairuz on Day 10. He claimed the conversation in the earlier Clip linking his name was “slander” but did not bother to take legal action. He read the expose news repeatedly from Malaysiakini and watch the clip and the next day drafted letters to the 3 VIPs (PM, DPM & Nazri) in the Executive “explaining his position” with the confidence that “no indications that could link him to the video clip”
And the Lingam man says his brother turned against him for failing to give him a “bungalow, a Merc & lots of money” More details, pics
Go H E R E
Post a Comment