Has Malaysia got the most powerful Attorney-General in the Commonwealth who is more powerful than the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is not bound by any principle of accountability to Parliament and the nation for the exercise of his discretionary powers

I refer to yesterday’s Malay Mail Online (MMO) report with the headline: “DAP vows to hound Nancy Shukri over Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning threat”.

The MMO headline is wrong and misleading as I had never made any vow, threat or statement to justify the headline “DAP vows to hound Nancy Shukri over Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning threat”.

For the record, this was what I said in my statement yesterday:

“It may seem unfair that Nancy had been hounded for over two weeks for her parliamentary answer that Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible, but this national outrage will not cease simply because right-thinking Malaysians cannot accept the two reasons which had been given for the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute – that Ibrahim was protecting the sanctity of Islam and Ibrahim’s action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution.

“Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and his ability to get away scot-free enjoying immunity from any sanctions of the law will continue to dog Nancy wherever she goes in the country until the Najib government can give a satisfactory and acceptable accounting on the matter.”

It is not that DAP would “hound” Nancy over the issue, but that she would be dogged by the issue wherever she goes in any part of the country, as this would be the question uppermost in the minds of Malaysians, including the media when they meet her, as the gross miscarriage of justice of the non-prosecution of Ibrahim Ali over such provocative and incendiary threat is so palpable that it stands out in direct contrast to the “white terror” regime of sedition blitz launched recently by the government, resulting in the investigation or prosecution of some 40 Pakatan Rakyat leaders, social activists, academicians and members of the press under the Sedition Act and other laws for the most legitimate and inoffensive expression of views.

There is nothing personal about the roiling controversy as very important issues and fundamental principles about constitutional, democratic and accountable governance are at stake, including:

1. Whether the de facto Law Minister in Malaysia is merely a Super Postman in Parliament acting like a robot reading out the answers prepared by Attorney-General’s Chambers with regard to the exercise of the powers and functions of the Attorney-General?

2. Whether Malaysia has got the most powerful Attorney-General in the Commonwealth who is more powerful than the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is not bound by any principle of accountability to Parliament and the nation for the exercise of his discretionary powers.

3. Why is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak maintaining his silence on the issue when it is clear that the Attorney-General’s actions run contrary to his call at three United Nations General Assemblies for a Global Movement of Moderates to oppose all forms of extremism and intolerance?

It is totally against the principles of accountable, responsible and democratic governance for Malaysia to have an Attorney-General who can abuse his discretionary powers arbitrarily, without any check or accountability.

Nobody knows for instance whether the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail had personally approved the answer given by Nancy Shukri in Parliament in her written reply to the Penang Chief Minister and Member of Parliament for Bagan Lim Guan Eng on Oct. 7 on why Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

If the answer was prepared by a law officer in the Attorney-General’s Chambers without the personal approval of the Attorney-General himself, does it mean that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department assigned the duties and responsibilities of a de facto Law Minister is merely an agent not only of the Attorney-General, but also of law officers in the AG’s Chambers.

If so, this will make an even greater mockery of the powers and responsibilities of the de facto Law Minister.

This is why it is long overdue for the Attorney-General Gani Patail to speak up – whether he had personally approved the answer given by Nancy in Parliament and the two reasons given for not prosecuting Ibrahim Ali despite his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible, and if so, to justify his reasons given the backdrop of nation-wide outrage at such a grave miscarriage of justice in the light of the recent sedition dragnet.