The Asian Wall Street Journal reporter, Mr Rapheal Pura's sworn statement that the influence-peddling lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam, wrote part of Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin's judgement in the Tan Sri Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai & Others case creates shivers down the spine of lawyers and laymen alike. Dato' Lingam's frienship with the Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, with whom he goes on holidays, is well known. Several important questions arise from this. Could it be possible Dato' V.K.
Lingam helped in writing judgements in other cases where he appeared side? What guarantee is there this is an isolated occasion? Equally important, what guarantee is there that Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin had had his judgements written by other lawyers in other cases? Can a litigant appear comfortable in an appeal -- Mr Justice Mokhtar has since been elevated to the Court of Appeal -- in which he sits with others known to be friendly with Dato' V.K. Lingam? Worse still, if Dato' Lingam
appears on the other side, can the litigant hope for justice?

Litigants must leave the court convinced they had had both a fair hearing and a fair judgement, especially if they lose. But the
activities of Dato' Lingam ensures one cannot be sure in any case he appears. In the defamation case mentioned earlier, Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin rushed the case through, awarded RM10 million or half the figure Tan Sri Vincent wanted, which he picked up from the air, refused to allow the defendants to engage counsel when the counsel appointed discharged himself. The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court decision. After obtaining leave, MGG Pillai appealed to the Federal Court. The five-man bench due to hear the appeal in January 1997 was abruptly cancelled. A year later, a three-bench heard the appeal after dismissing Pillai's application to have it heard before the earlier allowed five-man bench -- "We are short of judges", the Chief Justice said -- with a decision promised in March 1998. It still has not.

Judges are quick to blame lawyers and others appearing before them for minor infractions, and hold them in contempt. But the deafening silence when one of their own is implicated -- as Tun Eusoff and Mr Justice Mokhtar clearly are. They have not commented on Mr Pura's allegations, but it should not be within the realm of possibility, should that amended defence be allowed -- it was not on a techniciality -- the two judges could well have appeared as witnesses. For a lesser infraction, Tun Salleh Abas, the then Lord President, was hauled before a Special Tribunal, and dismissed. The action of Mr Justice Mokhtar in allowing a lawyer to write the judgement -- it does not matter now if the allegation is true or not, the perception that is is gains by the day he delays in not reacting, is a fit and proper case for the Special Tribunal to be convened. As is the Chief Justice's close friendship with Dato' Lingam. In fact, they should step aside immediately, and resign from the Bench, to restore judicial credibility.

The traditional canons of propriety that judges abide by have been broken. The deputy minister with oversight for the judiciary, Dato' Ibrahim Ali, quick to defend the judiciary against attacks, must now act to protect the institution, and take steps to ensure its independence and fairplay. That cannot under the present regime. What a retired Lord President, Tun Azmi Mohamed, referred to as the "Rukun Keadilan", a code of conduct for judges, -- there is nothing new in it, only a restatement of fundamental principles of judicial behaviour evolved by common law over the centuries -- in 1971 is honoured today by its breach by his latter day successor and a judge of the High Court. The judiciary is in crisis, caused in part by the influence-peddling Dato' V.K. Lingam. It is not Dato' V.K. Lingam alone; the man who took the photographs of the Chief Justice and Dato' Lingam on holiday in New Zealand is a lackey of the self-proclaimed international business man of
unquestioned repute, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, whose role in shortchanging justice include a holiday with his lawyer and the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, in Italy. Meanwhile, every judgement of Tan Sri Mokhtar's, and of every decision in which Dato' V.K. Lingam is counsel, is suspect. The judiciary, much devalued after drumming Tun Salleh out of office in circumstances that did not augur well for its independence, now faces a more serious problem from within. The Anwar trials raised doubts about its impartiality. Mr Pura's allegations strike at the root of justice in Malaysia. The longer the solution to this is delayed, the more damaging the consequences for the judiciary in Malaysia. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General's Chambers should consider action against Dato' Lingam for obstructing justice.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my