Decentralize A-G's powers to prevent abuse if win GE-13, Gobind tells Pakatan

Pakatan Rakyat should seriously consider decentralizing the powers of the Attorney General if it is elected into power.

At present the AG has sole discretionary powers under Art 145 of the Federal Constitution to commence criminal prosecutions.

The exercise of this discretion has in the past and of late become the subject of grave criticism. Some have argued that certain prosecutions were politically motivated. Others have criticized the AG for failing to prosecute where criminal acts were obvious and argued quite convincingly that those decisions were likewise motivated either politically or otherwise.

Some instances where prosecution have been criticized include the case involving DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng in defence of a young Malaysian girl who alleged that she was sexually violated. Lim was charged and subsequently imprisoned for 18 months after conviction.

Then there is the case of DAP chairman Karpal Singh who is currently charged for sedition for merely reiterating a legal opinion.

And we could take the case of PAS deputy president Mat Sabu who has been charged with criminal defamation. His accuser, it is said, openly retracted his complaint against him in court and apologized to him.

Latest we have the charge against PKR's Rafizi Ramli and another. This is even more disturbing as it smacks of utter disregard on the part of the AG of and concerning the need to protect whistle blowers thereby thwarting efforts by Parliament to encourage the public to participate in the fight against corruption.

The charges against Rafizi could also be seen as an affront towards the 'reformist' Najib administration. It also makes a complete mockery of the Prime Ministers promise to make this country "the world's best democracy".

These are just a few of very many examples.

Revamp long overdue

Pakatan Rakyat must, just like it hopes to achieve in all other areas of governance, introduce transparency and accountability into the field of decision making in the criminal justice system. This may be a somewhat radical departure from the conventional norm but there are compelling reasons justifying its inception.

Some of the suggestions include the setting up of a committee to whom complaints can be made where persons are charged or not charged, which committee would have the power to review decisions of the AG. It may be important to also consider making it compulsory for this committee to report to Parliament every year so that there is greater scrutiny and balance in their handling of complaints.

Another way would be to legislate to empower courts to determine whether or not certain decisions to prosecute are tainted and therefore liable to be set aside. The reverse would apply where no decision to prosecute is taken where evidence of an offence and the perpetrator is overwhelming.

The short of it is that we must recognize that there is the need for us to revamp the office of the AG and his powers.

At present the AG seems to be cold to criticism. Complaints against him are many but responses few, if any. This is perhaps because he is clothed with absolute power under the Federal Constitution.

This is the exact mind set which needs to be corrected. The AG must be put in a position where he can be called upon to explain. Opening his decisions to review would ultimately plant a greater sense of responsibility on his part in the exercise of his duties as Public Prosecutor.

GOBIND SINGH DEO is the DAP MP for Puchong