Lawyers concerned over KIDEX deal

The Bar Council will be holding a meeting soon to discuss the RM2.2 billion highway contract awarded to firms linked to a former CJ and an Umno lawyer.

UPDATED

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Bar president Lim Chee Wee said a number of lawyers were concerned on claims of a quid pro quo highway deal linking a former top judge at its annual meeting here today.

Lim told reporters after the AGM that the council will meet soon to “deliberate” on the matter although the Bar president said he would not “pre-empt” the outcome of the meeting that is likely to probe into a possible conflict of interest in the alleged deal.

“Quite a number of lawyers had raised the issue in the meeting… the Bar Council will look into the matter further,” he said.

Opposition lawmakers are harping on the RM2.2 billion contract to build the 50km-long Kinrara-Damansara Expressway (Kidex) to companies owned by Umno lawyer Hafarizam Harun and the wife of former Chief Justice Zaki Azmi.

The companies in question are Emrail Sdn Bhd and Zabima Engineering Sdn Bhd. Hafarizam is a director in both firms while Zaki’s wife, Nik Sazlina Mohd Zain is a director in Emrail.

The issue was first raised by controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin who claimed of the possibility that the contract may have been rewarded to the duo for allegedly helping deliver Perak to the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN).

Perak fell to opposition hands during tsunami of 2008 general election but was recaptured by BN during a year-long constitutional impasse that ensured when three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers left their parties to become BN-friendly independents.

Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said that the project was awarded on merit and not for political reasons.

“It is on the basis of proper evaluation. The project was awar­ded based on merit; based on submissions to the government and the Economic Planning Unit.

“It is no different from other concessions awarded by the government,” he had said.

‘Strictly on merit’
Hafarizam confirmed that his company had received the contract but denied that it was awarded for the said reason, calling the accusation malicious and intended at tarnishing his and Zaki’s image.

He said the contract was awarded to his company strictly on merits.

The Umno legal advisor also told an online news portal that he did not believe the attack was solely Raja Petra’s but made by “unseen hands” jealous of his company’s success.

Meanwhile, the former chief justic, refused to comment on the matter.

Lim said he saw no faults in lawyers owning businesses but argued that this particular allegation merit attention due to the “links” involved.

“There is nothing to stop a lawyer from being a successful business person but in this particular situation unfortunately (because of) the links that are involved,” he said, adding that this was why Bar members had raised the issue.

The Bar president also said members had questioned if Zaki did benefit from the contract and if it was justified for them to question if the contract was indeed a “reward” for the Perak takeover.

He said it was wrong for retired judges to receive “financial rewards” but noted that Zaki is not a shareholder and director of the company implicated.

Bar suggests bias in shoe-throwing Imam jailing
In another matter, the Malaysian Bar questioned if it was appropriate for the three Federal Court judges to preside over the imam Hoslan Hussin case and cite him for contempt of court which resulted in a one-year jail sentence.

Lim said several members had raised the question of possible bias in the matter. He said the annual meeting today saw a  “unanimous” voice expressing discontent over the “harsh” punishment.

“Quite a number (of lawyers raised the issue)… A few articulated it. But from the mood, it was a unanimous view— members shared that one year was really harsh,” Lim told a press conference here.

He added that members also questioned whether it was appropriate for the same panel of the Federal Court, which heard the application for leave to appeal, during which the act of contempt occurred, to cite Hoslan for contempt and sentence him for the said offence.

Hoslan (photo) flung his shoes at the Federal Court Bench on Feb 22 after they struck out his bid to challenge an eviction order from a city mosque here in 1999 on a technicality.

He stunned the judges, lawyers and members of the public who packed a courtroom at the Federal Court when he stood up, took off both his shoes and lobbed the pair right at the Bench.

Hoslan was found to have committed the act of contempt by the same three-man Bench, led by Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, last on Thursday.

The Bar had looked into law reforms on matters pertaining to contempt of court years ago, Lim pointed, and had recommended that in such situations that only judges not subject to the act of contempt should hear the contempt proceedings.