The people is now pleading to the AGUNG to take an interest in these corruption reports against the AG as no one else can do that. I sincerely hope and pray the AGUNG will side the rakyat and see to it that justice is done for all the crimes this particular AG has committed. “DAULAT TUANKU” Many allegations and police reports of corruptions against the AG have been made, but until now no one can take action on the AG. Is this AG Gani Patail more supreme than the royalties or GOD? Is he above the law?
THE recent challenge by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s defence team against the validity of the Attorney-General’s certificate to transfer his sodomy case from the Sessions Court to the High Court has again highlighted the need to seriously examine the role of the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General, it was argued, was not competent to issue the certificate as a report, which had been made against him for alleged tampering with evidence in Anwar’s first sodomy case in 1988, was still being investigated.
The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court ruled last Friday that the certificate was invalid.
The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in Malaysia has long been a subject of debate and controversy. He is the chief legal adviser to the government and is responsible for advising ministers involved in legal proceedings in their official capacity.
But as public prosecutor, he is also entrusted with power, which he uses at his discretion, to start, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.
His dual role has posed a real problem. A conflict of interest is bound to arise if he has to institute criminal proceedings against members of the government.
The ongoing Altantuya Shaariibuu prosecution, surrounded by rumours involving important political figures, is a case in point.
Some countries in the Commonwealth, such as Australia and Canada, do not have such a problem. There the job of reviewing evidence, and beginning and conducting prosecution of offences, is entrusted to a Director of Public Prosecutions.
Since he is unencumbered by the sort of duties and functions the Attorney-General has, he is kept away from direct government influence and is able to act with impartiality in assessing whether or not to prosecute a case.
His decision is based on whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction on the evidence available and whether it is in the public interest for the prosecution to begin.
The Attorney-General in such a system would be a government minister. This would remove the structural defect in the present Malaysian system which constantly invites accusations that the Attorney-General is motivated by bias or is being selective in instituting criminal proceedings.
If he were made a part of the political party in power, the Attorney-General would not need to pretend to be neutral.
Though not directly involved in deciding whether to institute criminal prosecutions, he should be responsible for overseeing and superintending the prosecution services of the country and should answer to Parliament for the conduct of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of his department.
There is currently no formal mechanism requiring the Attorney-General to account for his conduct in relation to prosecutions of criminal proceedings. In spite of the wide powers he wields, he has no duty to report to the prime minister, cabinet or Parliament.
There has been no call for him to account for the failure of a number of high-profile prosecutions, which commenced with much fanfare but ended up being a waste of public funds.
Last year, Tan Sri Eric Chia, the former managing director of Perwaja Steel, was acquitted after 43 days of trial without his defence being called.
In acquitting the accused, the presiding High Court judge heavily criticised the conduct of the prosecution, especially their failure to call several key witnesses who had obvious knowledge of the material elements of the case.
With reference to particular key witnesses from Japan, the judge questioned whether it was the Japanese witnesses who were “reluctant” to come or “the prosecution was the one reluctant to bring them here”.
The prosecution of Koh Kim Teck, a businessman, and his two bodyguards, who were charged with murdering 14-year-old Chinese national Xu Jian Huang, and who were acquitted in 2005, is another case in point.
After a trial lasting 36 days and with 39 prosecution witnesses having given evidence, the presiding judge found that the prosecution had not brought forward any evidence which could implicate the accused in the murder and that there had been no “prima facie” case made out to warrant the defence being called to answer the charge.
The prosecution had apparently omitted to call material witnesses, including the investigating officer for the case and Koh’s driver who had reportedly given a cautioned statement that he had seen both bodyguards throw Xu into the swimming pool where he was eventually found. Two other material witnesses who were present in the house were also not called.
Yet another was the prosecution for the murder of Noritta Samsudin, where the accused was acquitted after 29 days of trial. The prosecution appealed against the acquittal right up to the Federal Court.
In dismissing the appeal, the Federal Court noted that there was a gaping hole in the prosecution’s case, where it failed to sufficiently account for the likelihood of there being another person present at Noritta Samsudin’s condominium unit who could also have committed the crime. No one else has been charged for the murder.
Any discussion on expensive and long-running criminal trials would not be complete without reference to the Irene Fernandez trial which spanned seven years and took over 300 days to complete.
It is still not over for the Tenaganita director, who was convicted in 2003 of publishing false news about the ill-treatment of detainees in camps for illegal immigrants. Her appeal against this conviction to the High Court has been the subject of numerous delays and has yet to be heard.
The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial will also go on record as one of the longest trials in Malaysian history.
After more than 150 days, Abdul Razak Baginda was acquitted of abetting the murder and discharged on Oct 31, while the two police officers charged with her murder have been called to enter their defence.
As it is the taxpayers’ funds that ultimately pay for all criminal prosecutions, they have a vested interest in knowing how such cases, which appear to be ill-prepared, can be brought to trial.
It is imperative that the Attorney General’s wide powers be subject to close scrutiny and not be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily.
If the government is truly serious in wanting to improve and restore public confidence in the administration of justice in this country, it must be prepared to review the presently unfettered powers of the Attorney-General.
The AG currently wears 2 hats – as first Crown Officer and Public Prosecutor. In the first role, he advises the govt on legal matters and in the second, he acts impartially to prosecute. Our current AG has corrupted both roles. Separate the first and the second; the latter as an independent Director of Public Prosecution much like in Australia. The AG, being a politician, comes and goes with the government of the day. That way, there little chance of selective prosecution and acting like a legal a “dog” of corrupt politicians. No point answering to Parliament when it is controlled by the govt – at best, it merely highlights an issue if no action is taken.
the AG must be made to account for his actions and inactions. In a functioning democracy, nobody should be made beyond the need to be responsible, accountable and transparent, least of all the AG who’s neither a civil servant nor a politician. But he wields the sole discretion of prosecution powers without having to account to anyone. Such discretionary powers of prosecution must come with responsibility, hence accountability and transparency. Nobody can have ‘the whole cake and eat it.’So must the MACC report to Parliament like that of Hong kong and not to the PM.Also PDRM must accept Police complain commitee/consel to check on many related case of police misconducts.
In the past we have the AG reporting to the Law Minister (an official post and not the pseudo type we are having now which we identify as ‘de facto law minister’) who in turn reports to parliament. Remember Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusuf? Maybe we can start to decentralise the power of AG from there. Just wonder which PM abolished the portfolio of Law Ministry?you must control the powers of attorney general, or decentralise the powers of attorney general, then introduce legislation for such action to be delegated. Do not have hesitant decisions, if it for the good of the law of the country. Go, go,…go….. PR for GE13 Out out out the BN scoundrels.We should re-evaluate the power given to AG under current laws. We should ensure that AG will no longer have the absolute rights in determining which case to pursue as absolute power means absolute corruption.She was allegedly introduced to Abdul Razak Baginda, a defense analyst from the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre think-tank, at an international diamond convention in Hong Kong by Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, and reportedly began a relationship with him. She reportedly had worked as Abdul Razak’s translator on a deal he was brokering for the Malaysian government to buy submarines from France. The pair seem to have travelled to Paris together for the submarine deal.
Some sources allege that Altantuya came to Kuala Lumpur with a cousin in early October 2006 intending to confront Abdul Razak. When she went missing on Oct 19, her cousin lodged a police report and sought help from the Mongolian embassy in Bangkok. Altantuya, by her own admission in the last letter she wrote before her murder, had been blackmailing Razak. She did not say how she was blackmailing him, leaving open lots of questions.
The Malaysian police found fragments of bone, later verified as hers, in forested land near the Subang Dam in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam. Police investigation of her remains revealed that she was shot twice before C-4 explosives were used on her remains, although there has been later suggestion that the C-4 explosives may have killed her. When her remains were found their identity could only be confirmed with DNA testing. The provenance of the C-4 remains unclear.
Abdul Razak and three members of the police force were arrested during the murder investigation. The two murder suspects have been named as Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30 and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35. They had been members of the elite Unit Tindakan Khas (the Malaysian Police Special Action Force or counter-terrorism unit) and were both assigned to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who was also the Defence Minister at the time of the murder. Abdul Razak has been charged with abetment in the murder
this is what is left after c4 who ordered it Inhumanity talks!