Conflicting views over proceedings

By SHAILA KOSHY

KUALA LUMPUR: The decision of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip to hold part of the proceedings behind closed doors on Friday has drawn opposing views from Suhakam and Transparency International Malaysia.

Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib said the commission had the discretion to hold any part of the proceedings behind closed doors.

“They are not prohibited from doing so if they decide that it is in the interest of all parties.” “The function of the commission is to determine the truth, not to scandalise people. In this case, the commissioners know best what is appropriate for them to do.

“Proceedings can be held in camera to prevent innocent people from being dragged in,” said Abu Talib, a former Attorney General.

After the closed-door session on Day 9 of the inquiry, commission secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid had said, “It’s not nice for the news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant to the terms of reference.”

That hearing involved submissions on whether lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam’s brother and Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should be called to testify on the alleged closeness between Lingam and judges.

The commission had excluded the press and public as lawyers for the proposed witnesses had indicated they would be touching on certain personalities in the course of their submissions.

But members of the public who had turned up complained about the lack of transparency.

“It was an unfortunate decision, from the point of view of transparency, integrity and accountability,” said Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.

“This is an issue of wide public interest involving the appointment of judges and the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must be seen to be done,” he said.

Asked if it was not just as important to protect innocent individuals from being dragged in, Navaratnam said:

“Where there could be instances of unfair reference to individuals, I would rather trust the judgment of the chairman and other commissioners to determine what is relevant in open proceedings.

“If the question asked is inappropriate, they can stop it and if the answer is irrelevant they can order it expunged. That’s the layman’s approach to it,” he said.

The Commissions of Enquiry Act allows commissioners to demand all relevant evidence and examine any person deemed necessary.

The Act also gives them the right to include or exclude the public and press should they think it necessary.

Source: Thestar.com.my