“SHE is not the one we are looking for,” were the first words uttered by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, when contacted by Malay Mail yesterday over the presentation of Jayanthi L.G. Naidu at Parliament as the alleged missing “key witness” being sought by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) over the Datuk V.K. Lingam alleged judge-brokering case.

Nazri stressed it was a completely different witness that was being sought by the anti-graft commission. He explained that while authorities were “still looking for this guy, he probably sudah lari (was on the run) from day one”.

He said that under Malaysian law, a corruption case has no time limit. And so, the Lingam case can be reopened at any such time when the missing witness is found, even it takes more than 10 years.

Nazri also questioned how PKR could even know that Jayanthi was the missing key witness that MACC was seeking.

“We know better. After all, we are the ones who would be prosecuting this case. So, it would have been one of our witnesses, not theirs (PKR’s).”

Even so, in order to ensure the security of the witness, the latter’s identity cannot be revealed, according to Nazri, who added: “In case he becomes our main witness, we must protect him under the Witness Protection Act.

“Definitely, the girl (Jayanthi) is not the witness (we are looking for).” Jayanthi, Lingam’s former secretary, was brought by Subang MP R. Sivarasa in a bid to dispute Nazri’s earlier statement in Parliament on Monday where he said no action can be taken by MACC on the case as a “key witness” could not be found.

However, it was reported in an online news portal yesterday that Jayanthi claimed she had always been available to be contacted by MACC and claimed she herself had contacted MACC and had asked if she was the missing witness.

She purportedly said the commission was unable to give her an answer. Jayanthi also maintained her statements made to the then Anti-Corruption Agency (now MACC) and during the 2008 Royal Commission of Inquiry that Lingam had planned and paid for his and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin’s families’ New Zealand vacation in the 1990s.

She was also yesterday reported to have claimed that she was asked by Lingam to withdraw between RM100,000 and RM300,000, on several occasions, to be gift-wrapped and delivered to judges and that Lingam had written judge Datuk Mokhtar Sidin’s judgment in the Vincent Tan and M.G.G. Pillai libel case.

Nazri had, on Monday, also said in Parliament that it was not illegal for Lingam to have allegedly lobbied the appointment of judges.

This was first made public in the now infamous “correct, correct, correct” video recording of Lingam on the phone with then Chief Judge of Malaya Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim.

The video showed Lingam promising Ahmad Fairuz a promotion to Chief Justice due to various political links the former claimed to have had, and this did come to pass.

When the video was made public by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, public outcry led to the setting up of a royal commission.

After due process, the royal commission concluded “a compelling inference can reasonably and conceivably be drawn that Datuk V.K. Lingam was actively involved in the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Court of Appeal president, with the possible aim of his further appointment to the post of Federal Court Chief Justice”.

The commission also recommended that the authorities investigate former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Eusoff and Ahmad Fairuz, then Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, who was in charge of legal affairs, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Lingam for offences under the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code.