Karpal: Man in clip is Lingam

Wednesday, 20 February 2008 07:40am
©The Star

KUALA LUMPUR: The man in the video clip brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone is Datuk V. K. Lingam, submitted lawyer Karpal Singh.

In his written submission delivered by hand to inquiry secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Abdul Hamid yesterday, Karpal Singh argued that there was the evidence of businessman Loh Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne.

He argued that the evidence of both men was admissible under Section 60(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 which states:

“Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it.”

He argued that the evidence of Lingam’s former driver D. Ramachandran, who testified that he was familiar with Lingam’s movements and voice, also identified him.

Apart from that, he said, there was also the evidence of Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu that the body language and the way the man said “Correct! Correct! Correct!” clearly showed it was Lingam.

Besides, Karpal Singh added, “even his own (Lingam’s) evidence does not amount to a denial that the person in the video clip was in fact him”.

Karpal Singh submitted that the inquiry has the further evidence of Mohamed Zabri, who testified that scientific analysis of the audio and video of the clip showed that it had not been tampered with. He argued that the video clip was authentic.

(Karpal Singh acted for Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the inquiry’s Feb 5 proceedings, when he sought the removal of Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, saying that he (Haidar) was related by marriage to a key witness, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

(Haidar dismissed the application on the grounds that the relationship had ceased about 30 years ago after the death of Ahmad Fairuz’s brother who had married Haidar's sister.)

Yesterday, Karpal Singh said five copies of the submissions were enclosed for onward transmission to the members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Karpal Singh further said that the content of the conversation in the context of this submission was true.

He submitted that Lingam was guilty of sedition under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and for of professional misconduct under Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

The inquiry into the video clip showing a man brokering the appointment of judges over the telephone ended on Feb 15, after sitting for 17 days of sitting.

Lawyers for each of the witnesses have until Feb 25 to file written submissions.

The commission is to hand in its report to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by March 11.