Letters
Mat Zain Ibrahim
30.09.2011
IF YDP AGONG CAN BE DECIEVED,WORST THINGS CAN HAPPEN TO US
The Attorney General has been challenged to account for the three expert reports, he was alleged to have fabricated in an investigation into a particular case. Notwithstanding mounting public outrage for the AG to come clean on this issue,he chose to maintain a deafening silence, instead of making known his position.
Should he finds it tough though, to account for all the three,which is understandable, he should at least show his sincerity by giving an account for just one of them. Any one of the three that he is comfortable with, will do.
For the benefit of all, the first expert report was dated 26 October 1998.The said report together with the second expert report was properly tendered during the Black-Eye RCI proceedings in 1999, which was duly recorded by the Commissioners. However, before the RCI’s final report was presented to YDP Agong ,the said first report went missing.
No other persons other than the maker of the documents and the AG himself have personal interests over those expert reports.
The onus to account for the making and the subsequent disappearance of the said report dated 26.10.1998 before it reached The Agong, lies solely on Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail,the AG. Fabrication of evidence is one thing, how it was disposed of, is another.
If such a disloyal and despicable act can befall on the King, then more serious and heinous act can befall on His ordinary subjects.More worrying when the AG appears to be immune to criminal prosecutions,ostentatiously protected by the powers that be.
If making the first expert report to disappear suddenly, before it was presented to the Agong, is no big deal to the AG,then the sudden and timely appearance of a “suicide note” in the late Teoh Beng Hock’s Inquest and making the material CCTV footage to disappear into thin air, in Allayarham Ahmad Sarbani’s Inquest,are just peanuts to him.
The “now you see,now you don’t” tricks have been practiced one too many times right before our eyes, to the extent that not even a simple minded person, like many of us, can accept them as mere coincidences any more.
Prosecution of an AG
Quite many people hold the perception that the AG cannot be prosecuted in any criminal courts, except by himself, since he is also the one and only Public Prosecutor.This contention however is unfortunately inaccurate.
For the avoidance of doubts, Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC),is quoted below;
“The Public Prosecutor may appoint fit and proper persons to be Deputy Public Prosecutors who shall be under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor and may exercise all or any of the rights or powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers express to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally and he may designate any of the Deputy Public Prosecutors as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors.”
Quite simply, this passage means, that a DPP can do what the AG can, except which the AG has to do personally, as required by law which no other DPP can do on his behalf,under any circumstances. Such as the following;
a)Appointment of DPPs under Section 376(4)CPC.
b)Transfer of cases from Majistrate/Session Courts to The High Court under Sec.418A CPC.
c)Proceedings against the editor,proprietor,printer or publisher etc under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 under Section 68(2)CPC.
d)Any others specified as above under any laws.
For the records,the Solicitor General only have the powers of a DPP.Like any other DPPs the SG can exercise all the powers of the AG except those meant to be done by the AG personally (There is no such provisions for a Deputy AG or Acting AG).
It is clear from the above explanation that any DPP for that matter, from a one day old DPP,to the most senior in their hierarchy,the Solicitor General included, have the powers to prosecute the AG if they want to, or by anyone amongst them who have the courage and will.No one can stop them,not even the Prime Minister.I stand to be corrected on this.
After all,it was just a DPP and not the Solicitor General or the Head of the Prosecution Department of the AG’s Chambers who closed the investigation on the AG.
As for the Prime Minister,in so far as his authority over the conduct of the AG is concerned, is defined under Article 125(3) to be read together with Article 145(6) of The Constitution.This simply means that when the PM is satisfied that the AG have breached any provision of their code of ethics or for any other reasons,he can represent to the Agong, to appoint a Tribunal to adjudicate the conduct of the AG and thereafter take the appropriate actions based on the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal.
The issue whether the AG can be prosecuted or otherwise should not arise.The laws to deal with this kind of situation have long been in place.
We have in our history where a Chief Justice of the country, being unceremoniously removed from ofiice for writing some letters to the Agong.So why the different treatment when it comes to the Attorney General,when what he did are criminal in nature.
If for some strange reasons, the Cabinet considers that deceiving and/or misleading and/or insulting YDP Agong and/or the Government by the Attorney General so blatantly is still a non-issue, then we are in serious trouble.
How to make charges against the AG Yb LKS, you are referring to unprincipled men, they are there, simply because of their “licking” talent.
If the judiciary were run by men of integrity, we would not have so many Kangaroo Courts and Monkey Judges.
Work harder PR, clear the deck of all these disgraceful low beings sponsored by UMNO.
This is the typical example how UMNO PM
notorious saying being practised, “Lu tolong gua, gua tolong lu”
Biasa lah, they hv been fooling ppl, right fr d very top 2 d bottom, so what, man
Even d title of First Lady was stolen n used on a short fat lady of M’sia, no shame 1 lor
If even the most powerful, most influential do not use the internet, for what you expect the rakyat to ?
Three reports missing? Three times?
It reminds me of the famous words by Auric Goldfinger:
‘There is a saying in Chicago: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.” ‘
An AG who knows the law and breaks the law is not fit to be AG at all. Pakatan should bring the matter to the attention of the Agong.
We often see very senior officials being hauled up before select committees in the US Congress.
Do we not have similar mechanism in the Malaysian Parliament?
Yes the PM can appoint a tribunal to adjudicate the conduct of the AG and thereafter take the appropriate actions based on the Tribunal’s findings and recommendations. If The PM could do that as what TDM did in LP Salleh Abas case, so he could equally do so in realtion to AG’s position. However the other point made by Mat Zain Ibrahim – that any DPP could prosecute the AG – is not that certain because based on his very own citation of Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code DPPs act “under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor” and the Public Prosecutor here is the Attorney General. This means that the Solicitor General could take over as Public Prosecutor to direct DPP to prosecute only if the AG himself is on leave of absence due to pending enquiry of the tribunal appointed. So no action is possible until the PM takes the first step to advise the King to appoint the tribunal that will hearld the AG to take leave of absence pending clearance of the allegations against him .
The AG has become a law unto himself. When he and he alone decides whether to prosecute or NFA, that alone shows he is THE law of the nation. When the executive is beholden to him for not taking any action on him or his hand picked men, then the AG is in a position to blackmail people into submission.
The AG in Malaysia is above God Almighty. He decides on people’s fate. Nobody can touch him, not even the Agong.
According to the constitution the AG can prosecute the prime minister on his own initiative. But the PM cannot sack the AG without the recommendation of a special tribunal.
If the AG is a true professional, the PM has to adhere to the laws. But if the AG can be made a member of lua-tolong-gua, the PM becomes absolute monarch. Isn’t it better to be emperor than just a PM. Why then should the emperor give up his convenience. Domesticated and obedient fox are hard to come by.
The real problem is UMNO. The AG and the judiciary are following politically motivated instructions from UMNO.
Come judgement day, let the following take place:
For those who lied – let his tongue will be pulled off.
For those who steal – let his hands will be severed.
For those who commit adultery – let his sex organ will be severed.
Etc etc etc
You just have to put the guy on leave. Have an investigation. Any impropriety found that rises to the level of a crime, assuming there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed to prosecution, it would then be up to the government to charge him. To do that they would need to sack him first. He cannot be holding the post of Attorney General at the same time.
But all that is not going to happen.