I am flabbergasted by AAB’s statement when he said “Maybe the three-man independent panel wants to know a little bit more from the person on how he got all the information concerned so that they can further investigate.. Star report here. Didn’t NTR inform him on how the panel works?

And the panel’s modus operandi as outlined on 26th September ’07 was:

a) Based on police and other government agencies findings. b) Can probe further into the findings but cannot directly be involved in interviewing and obtaining details from those implicated. c) Findings will be submitted to the Cabinet, subsequently made public.

The ACA have taken statements from PKR personalities as well as the lawyer portrayed in the video clip. They have also wielded the big stick by issuing an order to PKR to divulge the identity of the whistle-blower and to hand over the remaining clip under penalty of a fine and/or jail term. PKR have refused to comply.

Therefore, until this ‘lingam mexican stand-off’ is resolved, I reckon there will be more mud-slinging press statements by politicians from both sides. Of course, the ACA will remain resolute in their quest (apart from not moving their butts from wherever they are) by summoning every Tom, Dick and Harry remotely connected to this case to ‘volunteer’ any information. And the 3-man independent panel will sit quietly somewhere, tweedling their thumbs for lack of progress in their inquiry.

So let’s make it easier for AAB to understand what’s going here, shall we.

These are four basic things the ACA and/or RMP should be working on to establish a chain of events and evidence which might stand up in a court of law:

1. Get the time-frame of when the call was made in 2002. (Lawyer’s phone number)

2. Match it with the number called. (Senior Judge phone number)

3. Ascertain that there was a person who answered the lawyer’s call. Re-ascertain that it is indeed the Senior Judge who answered the call.

4. Establish the fact that the tele-conversation at that particular time between the Senior Judge and the lawyer went according to the video transcript as provided by PKR even though there is no record of any form on what was said by the Senior Judge to support a dialogue.

Let me put it bluntly to PKR. Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the above represent a true depiction of how this matter transpired? Better still, does PKR have another whistle-blower available to substantiate the events as it occurred at the Senior Judge’s end?

With the numerous manner in which the event and evidence links cannot be established, I suspect that PKR themselves are equally incapable as the ACA/RMP in proving this allegation of judicial tempering by a rogue lawyer. Their only consolation in exposing the video clip was to gain political mileage based on a ‘what if’ situation, knowing full well, it will generate an overwhelming response from the public.

Or perhaps not. What if this video clip was deliberately revealed at the same time when the PAC was making inquiries into the PKFZ debacle? Was there covert collusion between certain factions in BN/UMNO and PKR to divert attention?

Think about it, folks.