by Ganesh Sahathevan
.png)
Vincent Tan appears to be seeking a return to the days of multi-million dollar defamation awards in his action against Kedah caretaker Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor. As Wan Farid J pointed out the decisions going back to Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai marked the advent of multi-million dollar defamation awards in Malaysia, and they remain good law.
That decision was revealed to have been written by Tan's lawyer who has since been disbarred, VK Lingam.
TO BE READ WITH
Lingam prepared judgement in Vincent Tan's civil suit12 Feb 2008 12:00 am
©Bernama (Used by permission)
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 12 (Bernama) –– The judgement in a civil suit awarding RM10 million in damages to corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun was written by lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam, the Royal Commission of Inquiry was told today.
Lingam's former secretary, L. G. Jayanthi said it was subsequently incorporated as the official judgment of the then High Court judge, Datuk Mokhtar Sidin who heard the case.
She made this revelation in her statutory declaration which was produced at the inquiry, affirming that the contents of her statutory declaration were true.
Jayanthi, 45, said that between November and early December 1994, she and two other colleagues, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman who also worked as secretaries for Lingam, were 'detained' by their boss to type a confidential document.
She later discovered that the purpose of their 'detention' was to prepare and type a judgement in relation to a civil suit brought by Tan against seven defendants, namely Haji Hassan Hamzah, Saw Eng Lim, the late M.G.G Pillai, V. Thavanesan, Dr Barjoyai Bardai, Media Printext (M) Sdn Bhd and Ling Wah Press Sdn Bhd.
"Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes, the draft judgment in that case, for Sumanti to type.
"I was seated somewhere in the vicinity of the office and every now and then, Lingam would order me to get various reported judgements from the library to be incorporated in the judgment," said Jayanthi, adding that the lawyer completed dictating the full judgement about 3am, before the judgement was printed out for Lingam to read.
"Lingam then corrected in red ink on certain pages of the draft judgement such as pages 3,7,9,19,24,28,32,35,39,40,42. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly, and made a copy of the said draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin by Lingam," she said.
Jayanthi said she later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam, was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge.
"I must stress here, that when Lingam was dictating the judgment that night, he was aided by his brother, Datuk V.Sivaparanjothi and Adam Bachek and W. Satchithanandan.
"I have kept Lingam's handwritten corrections of the draft judgement in my possession until handing it over, together with the corresponding formal judgement, to lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on the same date which I handed over the other exhibits," she added.
Questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan on why she kept all documents and photographs of the holiday trip of Lingam and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Jayanthi said before she resigned from the firm, Satchithanandan advised her to keep all the document because according to Satchithanandan, Lingam was a dangerous and vengeful person.
Jayanthi said Satchithanandan had complained to her that Lingam did not keep his promise to recommend him (Satchithanandan) to the chief justice to be elevated as judicial commissioner, despite having introduced the lawyer (Lingam) to the chief justice.
She said that after leaving the firm, she met Satchihanandan in Penang where he told her that Lingam had recommended Datuk K.L. Rekraj as judicial commissioner, instead of him (Satchithanadan).
Questioned by Rekraj's counsel, David Gurupathan whether she knew for a fact that Lingam had recommended Rekraj to be appointed as a judicial commissioner, Jayanthi replied: "I don't know".
Earlier, she testified that during her tenure with Lingam's firm, Lingam's younger sister, Chinmaya Devi and his younger brother, V.K. Thirunama were working respectively, as accounts clerk and odd job/despatch office worker.
Questioned by her counsel Shafee, on why she left the firm, Jayanthi said she was accused of stealing RM1 million worth of Berjaya Group shares belonging to Lingam as she was in charge of the shares and assigned to send share certificates to a securities company, two floors below Lingam's office.
She said the shares went missing for a while but two weeks later, Lingam called her to say that they (shares) were found and asked whether she wanted to rejoin the company.
Jayanthi said she chose to resign and Lingam acknowledged her resignation.
VK Lingam fails in final bid to practise law
The lawyer had been barred from practising law after being implicated in a judge-fixing scandal.
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today affirmed that former lawyer VK Lingam, who was implicated in a judge-fixing scandal in 2001, is barred from practising law.
This follows the decision of a three-member bench, chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, to dismiss Lingam’s final appeal.
Tengku Maimun, who sat with Mary Lim and Zabidin Mohd Diah, said the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board had given its reason to strike Lingam’s name off the rolls following an order on Nov 6, 2015.
“As such, appellate intervention is not warranted and the Court of Appeal ruling is affirmed,” she said.
The top judge said Lingam had likened the complaint made against him and the proceedings that ensued thereafter to a “charge” or criminal proceeding.
“The Federal Court has reminded in emphatic terms that disciplinary committee proceedings are not to be regarded as criminal proceedings,” she said.
She said Lingam had been given the right to be heard and to address the complaint against him.
Tengku Maimun said a specific allegation made against Lingam was that he had
interfered with judicial appointments, which is an allegation of misconduct.
“That relates directly to his conduct irrespective of whether he was acting
alone or in concert with others,” she said
She added that it was undisputed that the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, had all made concurrent findings of Lingam having interfered with judicial appointments.
Tengku Maimun said Lingam’s lawyer R Thayalan had said his client was unable to contradict the account of Loh Gwo Burne who heard the appellant (Lingam) attempting to interfere with judicial appointments.
“It is our view that it does not matter which judicial appointments exactly the appellant (Lingam) attempted to interfere with and findings to that extent are not relevant,” she said.
The important point, Tengku Maimun said, was that findings were made on Lingam’s attempt to interfere and these were not rebutted.
On the admissibility of the video which was used to prove the misconduct, she said Lingam argued it was not the original but a downloaded copy and that it did not amount to secondary evidence.
“The fact remains that the maker of the original video itself (which was said
to be made in 2001) was called to testify on the video. This was Loh Gwo
Burne,” she said
In other words, quite apart from the veracity of the video, itself, Gwo Burne was the one who directly witnessed Lingam speaking on the phone as alleged in the video.
“We are satisfied that Gwo Burne did in fact testify on the video and confirmed that the contents were in fact uttered by the appellant (Lingam),” she said, adding that Lingam did not challenge these points.
The bench also ordered Lingam, who is believed to be overseas, to pay RM30,000 in costs to the board and the Bar Council, represented by Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.
Last year the Court of Appeal bench chaired by Lee Swee Seng said the High Court was correct in maintaining the findings of the disciplinary board to strike Lingam’s name off the rolls.
Lee said the findings of the board to accept the evidence of Gwo Burne and his father Mui Fah that Lingam was on the telephone communicating with then chief judge of Malaya Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim were justified.
A royal commission of inquiry had also recommended that action be taken against Lingam, Fairuz, former chief justice Eusoff Chin, tycoon Vincent Tan, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former minister Tengku Adnan Mansor.
However, nothing came out of it despite a police investigation.
It was revealed in the inquiry that Lingam was engaged in the telephone conversation with Fairuz in 2001 to appoint superior court judges who would be aligned to the establishment.
The video came into public domain in 2007, leading to the government setting up the RCI which made several proposals, one of which was to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission to propose judges for elevation.
SEE ALSO
