Categorised | Found in Quotation

Why no action in Lingam case?

“The Commissioners find sufficient evidence of misbehaviour on the part of certain individuals or personalities identified or mentioned in the video clip.”

“The Commissioners find sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against the various individuals mentioned in the video clip which we have elaborated in the Report. We do not discount the possibility of other laws being contravened. We leave it to the Attorney General, Malaysia and the Malaysian Bar Council to take the appropriate actions against the personalities implicated.”

An excerpt from the report of the royal commission set up to investigate the VK Lingam tape scandal which indicated the likelihood that the appointment of judges was being brokered by powerful individuals. (Source: Commission of enquiry on the video clip recording of images of a person purported to be an advocate and solicitor speaking on the telephone on the matters regarding the appointment of judges, 9 May 2008)

“After ACA officers investigated those involved in the video clip, it was concluded that there is no abuse of power.

“The Attorney-General (AG) has decided that no further action is needed.”

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, in a written response in Parliament to a question from Member of Parliament (MP) for Bagan, Lim Guan Eng, from the DAP. Nazri, the de facto law minister, said that four papers were opened, three sent to the AG’s Chambers and one to the Anti-Corruption Agency (now Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission or MACC).

Of the three papers investigated by the AG, two were closed due to insufficient evidence and the remaining paper was closed due to lack of suspects, Nazri said. (Source: Case against Lingam closed, The Star, 22 Oct 2009)

“We propose to bring the witness to Parliament to show to the MACC that there is such a witness and we are in contact with the witness.”

Subang MP R Sivarasa reveals in Parliament that Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is in contact with a witness who is available to testify to keep the Lingam video case open.

The production of the witness would undermine the MACC’s claim that it cannot find a key witness to Lingam’s holiday trip to New Zealand with former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin. Sivarasa, who is PKR vice-president, described the agency’s excuse as “totally not acceptable”, saying it demonstrated its “unwilling attitude and inaction” in locating the witness. (Source: Parliament: Witness available for Lingam case, The Star, 26 Oct 2009)

“The Government must do its utmost to investigate the matter, including looking into the announcement, made two days ago, that a key witness is available to testify. Dismissal, lukewarm responses or inaction are not options that the Government has the luxury to indulge in.”

Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan urging the government not to close the Lingam video case until all leads are exhausted. Ragunath was responding to Sivarasa’s statement in Parliament. (Source: Leave no stone unturned , The Malaysian Bar, 28 Oct 2009)

“The investigation in relation to VK Lingam’s video case is still under investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the police are no longer handling the case.”

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, in a written reply to Wangsa Maju MP Wee Choo Keong during a parliamentary session. Nazri, on his part, claims that his words were misinterpreted by the media, and that “no further action” did not mean the case was closed. (Source: Now Hisham says Lingam still under probe, The Malaysian Insider, 29 Oct 2009)

“Whilst the Bar Council is relieved that the MACC is continuing with its investigations, it must do so with utmost vigilance and of a standard deserving of any independent and competent enforcement agency.”

Bar Council vice-president Lim Chee Wee expressing relief upon hearing that investigations on the Lingam tape were still ongoing. He also vowed disciplinary action against Lingam if the lawyer was found guilty of misconduct. This could include Lingam being disbarred. (Source: Bar: Action against Lingam if there’s case to answer, The Star, 30 Oct 2009) favicon

The Nut Graph needs your support

Post to Twitter Post to Google Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Why no action in Lingam case?”

  1. Andrew I says:

    Crap, crap, crap.

  2. Andrew I says:

    Sorry for the above, but if you say car-ap slower, it sounds like cor-rect. English lesson for today, brought to you by the Linguistic Times.

  3. Tan says:

    How can we not form a negative perception on the ruling government when every single high profile case ended either with NFA, acquitted, not enough evidence, etc.. while the “ikan bilis” were prosecuted and humiliated in MSM . There is no point of setting up the high profile RCI, Enforcement Agencies when there is no political will to manage them.


Most Read in Found in Quotation

Most Read (Past 3 Months)

Most Comments (Past 3 Months)

  • None found

Advertisement


<

Advertisement


<
  • The Nut Graph

 

Switch to our mobile site