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.