Below are excerpts from the report:

• IN the final analysis, when all is said and done by the experts, both local and foreign, stripped off all the technical jargon that they used in their findings, when examined in the context of the direct or primary evidence of the maker of the video clip, coupled with that of the eyewitnesses, a simple question confronting the Commission can be posed in lay man terms: Is the video clip genuine, real, reliable, or trustworthy and therefore authentic? We have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative.

• Evidence has been disclosed before the Commission that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then Prime Minister and Tan Sri Vincent Tan, a business tycoon, were friends and that their relationship spanned many years. Indeed, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had conceded that he might have sought the views of Tan Sri Vincent Tan concerning the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge of Malaya although he could not remember exactly. Tan Sri Vincent Tan had denied this but we think that this was very likely, given the close relationship between them at the time. And Tan Sri Vincent Tan, as disclosed in evidence, had known Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan since the 1990s when they were business associates before the latter entered politics. Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan was at the material time the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of legal affairs and he had admitted to holding shares in the Berjaya Group owned or controlled by Tan Sri Vincent Tan. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer they knew each other well.

• “Oh but, don’t worry, we will organise this, and if Tan Sri Vincent... if Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku Adnan want to meet you privately, they will... I will get them to... I will call you. We will organise a private arrangement... in a very neutral place.”

As to what they were expected to organise, we have the following matters: the confirmation of TAF (Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) as PCA (President of the Court of Appeal), the appointment of the chosen candidates who would be TAF’s soldiers, and the conferment of a Tan Sriship. What also can be inferred is that DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) was telling TAF that he need not trouble himself about going to meet TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan) and TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) but they would arrange to meet TAF if they wanted to. The reference to a private place indicated a guilty knowledge that what was being contemplated was a clandestine exercise.

• Worse was to follow when TD (Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah) proposed the candidacy for five High Court judges with his letter of October 2, 2001. This time, it is not even the PM (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) but the KSN (chief secretary to the government) who picked out five names from the roll of serving Judicial Commissioners for TD to choose two out of the five names. The KSN said he did this of his own initiative. No reasons were given for dropping the two candidates suggested by TD and when TD pressed the issue he got a brusque letter to say these two were rejected. Again no reasons were given.

The PM cannot remember the reasons. His KSN does not know the reasons. But there was somebody else who claimed to know the reasons. That somebody else is DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) and he said he achieved this with the participation of TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan) and TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) when all three of them went to see the PM with this objective in mind.

• “And... then... ah Tan Sri Dzaiddin said he is going to recommend for six people for... court of appeal... until today the letter hasn’t come to PM (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad). He never discussed but neither has he sent the letter to PM. He has not sent. So I know, you know, under the Constitution for judges is... is for your joblah... Dato to send but we don’t want to make it an issue now.... A tough time hah?”

We think this information could only have come from a mole in the PM’s office and in the sequence of the narration the most likely source is TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) because DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) does not identify any other person from within the PM’s office. The allegation that TD (Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah) ‘said’ indicates a verbal statement. In fact TD did send a list of six candidates for the Court of Appeal in 2002, two of whom were elevated on June 8, 2002, with another five who were not his candidates. On Dec 20, 2001, DVKL is showing here that he had advance information of TD’s intentions. The appointment of six additional judges of TD’s choosing to the Court of Appeal was being envisaged here by DVKL and TAF (Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) as a hostile act to DVKL and friends.

• “Correct, correct, correct, correct. Ah... correct, correct. You know that the same problem Tun Eusoff Chin had. He tried to do all this and... and yet he had run out of soldiers. He couldn’t do it because many were on the other camp. You know but the last time was unfortunate because Tun Daim (Zainuddin) was doing everything sabotaging... you know...ah.”

This statement following on the importance of “key players must be there” wa s obviously a reference to their agreement to co-ordinate a network of judges who would do what was required of them by their patrons. The reference to Tun Daim suggests previous interference with their plans from that quarter.

• “We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of PM (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) and for the sake of the country. Not for our own interest, not for our own interest. We want to make sure the country comes out well...”

The reference to “we ” and making sure that “our friends are there for the sake of the PM...” makes it manifestly obvious that the game plan was for DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam), TEC (Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin), TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan) and TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) and their contacts to make sure that their friends are there (meaning in the judiciary) for the sake of the PM. Where this state of mind among these operators left the concept of the inviolability of the independence of the judiciary is perhaps better imagined than described.

• “Yes. You know. Ah good lah... ok, you don’t worry. I.... I am constantly working on this... I ... Ya, ya, don’t worry, don’t worry ah... We work hard on this, Datuk, and then aaa... if Tan Sri Vincent and Tengku want to see you, I will organise it in such a ... a confidential place. Ok, Datuk, all the very best and aaa... God bless you and your family. Ok, thank you, thank you. Bye, bye, bye, bye, bye.”

This is the end of the conversation by DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam), on the phone and the only comment we need make is that it is clear from this that the operators were DVKL, TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan) and TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) working very hard together.

• TAF (Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) was at pains to distance himself from not just DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) , but also TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan), and TATM (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor). But when he was asked to explain the connection between the allegation that it was TATM who was instrumental in getting him conferred with the Tan Sriship, TAF’s credibility was badly dented.

• TATM’s (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) name was mentioned no less than 11 times in the video clip, and in each case, it was in the context of what TATM could or would do to advance the status of TAF (Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) in the judicial hierarchy. In short, DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) was holding TATM as his number one fixer within easy reach of the PM (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad).

• The critical question is why DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) should say all the things about him (Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor) if they were not true. And the answer he gave was that DVKL could have been drunk at the time. This explanation is too facile to be accepted. The DVKL we saw on the video clip was certainly not drunk. The various stages of inebriation were visibly and palpably absent. So why give such an explanation which was no explanation at all?

Again, it was one man’s word against another and in all the circumstances of the case, we regret to say that it is our opinion that TATM was too economical with the truth to be bel i e ve d .

• There is evidence in the documents produced to us that at that time TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan) was involved in a string of highprofile commercial cases. Indeed, in all of them DVKL (Datuk V.K. Lingam) was his counsel, and in one of them, the defamation award was the highest award in the C o m m o n we a l t h .

It is hard to believe that TSVT would not have taken a very keen interest in the identity of the judges who were trying his cases.

• So far as the truth of the content of the transcript was concerned, we were unable to accept TEC’s (Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin) bare denials at face value.

We conclude that he must have had a hand in the appointment, and or, rejection of the judges named in the transcript, even though the extent of his involvement was problematical.

• As for TSVT (Tan Sri Vincent Tan), former PM (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) said, “Well, I have had a relationship with him for many years and I know him very well. I ride at his place so I meet him. And, we were, I would say friends.”

• It is sufficent for us to state here that the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned had the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.