Lingam is not ‘legally clean’: We found out that Lingam had actually written a judgment for a particular judge and that he had gone on a trip to New Zealand with another judge.

There are no takers for a minister’s claim that lawyer VK Lingam ‘has not breached any specific law’ in the alleged brokering of judicial appointments.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz had yesterday defended the government’s decision not to take action, although he conceded that Lingam’s actions could be deemed ‘morally wrong’.

In 2007, a royal commission of inquiry into the ‘Lingam tape’ case had recommended investigations against Lingam  and several high-profile personalities under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and Penal Code for obstructing justice.

The matter was also referred to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), but it has closed the file on the ground that it could not locate key witnesses.

The decision has not gone down well, as the following reactions reveal.

Edmund Bon, chairperson, constitutional law committee, Bar Council

The royal commission has already decided that several laws were breached. Therefore Nazri’s statement is not correct. It is unthinkable that a commission picked by the Agong could have been wrong.

Public perceptions would be towards the royal commission’s findings as these would appear to be more transparent compared to the MACC report.

We should still charge him (Lingam) under corruption, and follow the recommendations of the commission.

The Bar Council is in the process of proceeding with disciplinary action against Lingam and so far, (several) witnesses have come forward (to help with the) investigation.

Andrew Khoo, co-chairperson, human rights committee, Bar Council

If (the actions have) the potential to undermine the judiciary, then he (Lingam) should be charged under the Sedition Act.

Although the Bar Council’s official position is that it is against the Sedition Act, undermining the integrity of the judiciary seems to fit squarely with conduct that is seditious. The government seems to be happy to use the Act against people like (lawyer and DAP national chairperson) Karpal Singh.

Nazri  cannot say that what Lingam did is within the law because brokering the appointment of judges implies that there are rewards to the broker, be it monetary or otherwise.

If Lingam brokered the appointments, it would suggest that he did it for some gain. A distinction should be made between lobbying and brokering.

Prof Khoo Kay Kim, member of the ‘Lingam tape’ royal commission

Our findings have been published. There was evidence to suggest that Lingam had committed offences. For example, we found out that Lingam had actually written a judgment for a particular judge and that he had gone on a trip to New Zealand with another judge.

Unfortunately the Executive is so powerful that it can interfere with the role of the judiciary. And the Lingam case is an example of how the Executive has usurped the power of the judiciary.

With regards to the MACC decision to not proceed with its investigation, how do we know that it is telling the truth?

Ultimately, (this matter) will go back to the people and the sovereignty that lies within the people. Unfortunately we can only decide once every five years.

Ustaz Idris Ahmad, PAS information chief

PAS feels that Nazri’s answer in Parliament yesterday – that Lingam has not committed any offence – is illogical. It shows that the enforcement and justice system in the country is in turmoil.

Nazri agreed that the person in the video clip is Lingam, but that he assumes Lingam is (only) boasting and showing off his influence.

This answer is unacceptable because, during the inquiry, Lingam had said that the video clip showed someone that looks like him and sounds like him, but is not him.

Therefore, we have two different facts with regard to Lingam’s identity. This has to be proven in a court of law.

PAS also feels that the royal commission’s recommendations for an investigation against the other individuals implicated have been neglected. No official report has been made. Nazri’s answer is filled with assumptions alone and has let Lingam off easily.

This case should be investigated with care. The parliamentary reply seems to have disregarded 100 percent the royal commission’s recommendation for further investigations to be conducted.

PAS would like the case to be investigated immediately and taken to the court. This is a chance for the MACC, the police and judiciary to improve their image, as they have lost the trust of the people.

Christine Chan/Mkini