KUALA LUMPUR: The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigator in charge of the video clip case admitted she did not investigate many potential angles although leads were apparent from the testimony of witnesses and from the clip itself.
Senior Superintendent Chuah Lay Choo made the admission under the barrage of information put to her by lawyers acting for several witnesses of the inquiry and the Malaysian Bar.
As she was being “grilled” on the methodology that she had employed when conducting her investigation, the 52-year-old started to stutter.
Speaking in a faltering voice, she hesitantly acknowledged the obvious leads that she did not follow.
Her persistent replies that her scope of investigations was only confined to “the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Court of Appeal president and Chief Justice” drew irksome reactions from those in the public gallery.
To questions by Americk Sidhu, counsel for businessman Loh Mui Fah, Chuah said she was instructed to investigate the case at the end of September last year.
She said her team recorded the statements of Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
Asked how she picked out Loh, when there are 26 million Malaysians, Chuah said: “From our investigations, we found that he was the person in the second portion of the video clip.
Americk: Who pointed this out?
Chuah: It was through our investigations.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor: Ya, but who?
Chuah: It was from an interview with Datuk V.K. Lingam.
Haidar: He told the ACA?
Chuah: Yes.
Haidar: Just say so lah. Don’t hide.
Americk: When V.K. Lingam identified Loh Mui Fah as the person in the clip, did he identify himself as well?
Chuah: No, he didn’t. He said it appears like him and sounds like him.
Americk: Once he identified Loh Mui Fah, did he give his particulars? That’s how you traced him (to Malacca)?
Chuah: Yes.
She also said her team found out that Lingam was in Britain when the video clip was first made public and that the ACA only got the phone numbers of Lingam, Tan, Tengku Adnan and Ahmad Fairuz as stated in their statements. However, she admitted that she did not ask them to volunteer the numbers they had in 2000 and 2001.
Asked if she had tried to find out what Lingam’s phone number was in his house in Britain, Chuah replied that her team tried but failed.
Americk then asked her if it would assist her investigations if he gave the number to her.
“It would not be useful now. I don’t think so,” she replied.
Americk: If you were to obtain the mobile and fixed lines of the other key players, would you be able to retrieve their records from September to December?
Chuah: We may be able to.
Americk: Once you have all these records, would it be possible to find out whether any calls were made between any of these numbers from September to December?
Chuah: I believe so.
To questions by counsel Christopher Leong, who is acting for the Malaysian Bar, she said she was aware of the investigations carried out by ACA in 1998 in relation to allegations made by Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu.
She, however, did not investigate because her investigations were confined to the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
Later questioned by Ranjit Singh, another counsel for the Bar, Chuah said she did not check the telephone records of prominent figures mentioned in the clip because to her the relevant period meant the day the clip was filmed.
Ranjit: But you said you did not know the date.
Chuah: Errr, we were told it was in 2002.
Ranjit: Who told?
Chuah: When the clip was handed we were told it was 2002.
Ranjit: My suggestion is that the material time will be around the time this video was recorded, before and soon after that.
Chuah: At that time, it did not occur to me.
Ranjit: In the transcript of the clip there are references to phone calls and discussions, for example, between Lingam and Tengku Adnan. Don’t you think this is relevant?
Chuah: At that time, we were trying to establish when the conversation occurred. We were trying to get closer to the period. We haven’t even confirmed the date of that call yet.
Ranjit: Now do you think it is relevant? It does appear quite improper for a lawyer to be brokering appointment of judges?
Chuah: It is irrelevant but we have direct interview with the witness concerned.
Ranjit: As the investigating officer, you know you will be facing potential criminals and after you interviewed you verify the facts because not all of them are going to tell the truth?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: This wasn’t done in this case?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: I suggest that neither you nor the ACA have done a thorough investigation on the contents of this video.
Chuah: I think we have tried to establish the truth.
Ranjit Singh then proceeded to ask Chuah whether she investigated a 25-minute call made from Lingam’s house to a Singapore registered number – 02-98766505 – on the day the clip was recorded.
Chuah admitted that she did not do so.
Ranjit: Wouldn’t it be relevant? Did you not follow up?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: Did you find out if Tun Ahmad Fairuz was in Singapore in December 2001?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: Did you not think it was pertinent?
Chuah: As I understand, in the video clip it was an incoming call.
Ranjit: That was what a witness said. It may not be the real position. The fact that you went through Lingam’s house phone records suggests that you suspected that the call could have been made from there. Would it not be pertinent to check if Tun Ahmad Fairuz was in Singapore?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: From another phone in the same house, there was another 28-minute call to Singapore on the same number at 9.46pm. Is it not pertinent to check that too?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: If Tun Ahmad Fairuz had used a prepaid number in 2001, you also wouldn’t be able to check?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: So, this list (referring to Ahmad Fairuz’ fixed lines records) does not confirm conclusively whether Tun Ahmad Fairuz made a call to V.K. Lingam in late December 2001?
Chuah: (Silent)
Senior Superintendent Chuah Lay Choo made the admission under the barrage of information put to her by lawyers acting for several witnesses of the inquiry and the Malaysian Bar.
As she was being “grilled” on the methodology that she had employed when conducting her investigation, the 52-year-old started to stutter.
Speaking in a faltering voice, she hesitantly acknowledged the obvious leads that she did not follow.
Her persistent replies that her scope of investigations was only confined to “the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Court of Appeal president and Chief Justice” drew irksome reactions from those in the public gallery.
To questions by Americk Sidhu, counsel for businessman Loh Mui Fah, Chuah said she was instructed to investigate the case at the end of September last year.
She said her team recorded the statements of Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
Asked how she picked out Loh, when there are 26 million Malaysians, Chuah said: “From our investigations, we found that he was the person in the second portion of the video clip.
Americk: Who pointed this out?
Chuah: It was through our investigations.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor: Ya, but who?
Chuah: It was from an interview with Datuk V.K. Lingam.
Haidar: He told the ACA?
Chuah: Yes.
Haidar: Just say so lah. Don’t hide.
Americk: When V.K. Lingam identified Loh Mui Fah as the person in the clip, did he identify himself as well?
Chuah: No, he didn’t. He said it appears like him and sounds like him.
Americk: Once he identified Loh Mui Fah, did he give his particulars? That’s how you traced him (to Malacca)?
Chuah: Yes.
She also said her team found out that Lingam was in Britain when the video clip was first made public and that the ACA only got the phone numbers of Lingam, Tan, Tengku Adnan and Ahmad Fairuz as stated in their statements. However, she admitted that she did not ask them to volunteer the numbers they had in 2000 and 2001.
Asked if she had tried to find out what Lingam’s phone number was in his house in Britain, Chuah replied that her team tried but failed.
Americk then asked her if it would assist her investigations if he gave the number to her.
“It would not be useful now. I don’t think so,” she replied.
Americk: If you were to obtain the mobile and fixed lines of the other key players, would you be able to retrieve their records from September to December?
Chuah: We may be able to.
Americk: Once you have all these records, would it be possible to find out whether any calls were made between any of these numbers from September to December?
Chuah: I believe so.
To questions by counsel Christopher Leong, who is acting for the Malaysian Bar, she said she was aware of the investigations carried out by ACA in 1998 in relation to allegations made by Lingam’s brother V. Thirunama Karasu.
She, however, did not investigate because her investigations were confined to the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
Later questioned by Ranjit Singh, another counsel for the Bar, Chuah said she did not check the telephone records of prominent figures mentioned in the clip because to her the relevant period meant the day the clip was filmed.
Ranjit: But you said you did not know the date.
Chuah: Errr, we were told it was in 2002.
Ranjit: Who told?
Chuah: When the clip was handed we were told it was 2002.
Ranjit: My suggestion is that the material time will be around the time this video was recorded, before and soon after that.
Chuah: At that time, it did not occur to me.
Ranjit: In the transcript of the clip there are references to phone calls and discussions, for example, between Lingam and Tengku Adnan. Don’t you think this is relevant?
Chuah: At that time, we were trying to establish when the conversation occurred. We were trying to get closer to the period. We haven’t even confirmed the date of that call yet.
Ranjit: Now do you think it is relevant? It does appear quite improper for a lawyer to be brokering appointment of judges?
Chuah: It is irrelevant but we have direct interview with the witness concerned.
Ranjit: As the investigating officer, you know you will be facing potential criminals and after you interviewed you verify the facts because not all of them are going to tell the truth?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: This wasn’t done in this case?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: I suggest that neither you nor the ACA have done a thorough investigation on the contents of this video.
Chuah: I think we have tried to establish the truth.
Ranjit Singh then proceeded to ask Chuah whether she investigated a 25-minute call made from Lingam’s house to a Singapore registered number – 02-98766505 – on the day the clip was recorded.
Chuah admitted that she did not do so.
Ranjit: Wouldn’t it be relevant? Did you not follow up?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: Did you find out if Tun Ahmad Fairuz was in Singapore in December 2001?
Chuah: No.
Ranjit: Did you not think it was pertinent?
Chuah: As I understand, in the video clip it was an incoming call.
Ranjit: That was what a witness said. It may not be the real position. The fact that you went through Lingam’s house phone records suggests that you suspected that the call could have been made from there. Would it not be pertinent to check if Tun Ahmad Fairuz was in Singapore?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: From another phone in the same house, there was another 28-minute call to Singapore on the same number at 9.46pm. Is it not pertinent to check that too?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: If Tun Ahmad Fairuz had used a prepaid number in 2001, you also wouldn’t be able to check?
Chuah: Yes.
Ranjit: So, this list (referring to Ahmad Fairuz’ fixed lines records) does not confirm conclusively whether Tun Ahmad Fairuz made a call to V.K. Lingam in late December 2001?
Chuah: (Silent)
