AG: Claims of weak prosecutors unfounded

Attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail has dismissed allegations that his prosecutors are “weak and incapable”, saying that such claims are unfounded.

He stressed that deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) will present all evidence that is available and admissible in a case, and the decision whether to charge rest solely on whether there is enough evidence to prove a case.

This includes calling all essential witnesses, he said, but it is beyond the prosecutors whether they cooperate.

“What matters here is that we never embellish or fabricate evidence and what we ultimately do, should a witness turn hostile is to impeach him and in turn charge him for perjury,” he said in a statement today.

Abdul Gani’s statement appear to be in response to a Malaysiakiniarticle published this morning, highlighting failures to prosecutethe culprits behind five high-profile cases last year.

The article also quotes, among others, Lawyers for Liberty adviser Eric Paulsen (right) urging the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to be made accountable to the parliament like in the UK, while PKR vice-president N Surendran questioned ‘half-hearted’ prosecutions in public interest cases compared to resources used in PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial.

In response, Abdul Gani said that it is common in almost all jurisdictions, including the UK, to have prosecutorial powers vested in a single person.

“In fact, for certain offences, the UK Parliament has decided that the attorney-general’s consent is needed to bring a prosecution,” he said.

He added that DPPs are assigned to cases depending on the complexity of the case, with senior DPPs being assigned to more complex cases.

He also stressed that the outcome of the case rests with the presiding judge, although the AGC would appeal if it feels that the judgment was made in error.

Abdul Gani’s statement also offers an account of four of the cases highlighted in the article, namely the murder of Chee Gaik Yap, the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, the shooting of Aminulrasyid Amzah, and former transport minister Dr Ling Liong Sik’s cheating charge in the Port Klang Free Zone scandal.

There has been no response from the attorney-general on the acquittal of four police officers charged with assaulting businessperson Chia Buang Hing, which the magistrate ruled that the injuries were inflicted during a lawful arrest where Chia had struggled.

Abdul Gani said the AGC disagrees with the appellate court’s decision to acquit former police officers Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar for Altantuya’s murder and has already filed an appeal.

‘Main grounds were non-directions of trial judge’

“The main grounds of acquittal by the Court of Appeal were the non-directions of the trial judge on issues raised by the appellants and the non-calling of one DSP Musa Safri...

“Non-direction or misdirection of the trial court should not be attributed to the prosecution as it has nothing to do with the conduct of the prosecution. As for the calling of DSP Musa Safri, this office maintains that his testimony sheds no relevance to the narrative of the prosecution’s case,” he said.

As for Ling’s acquittal, he said Ling (left) had called former ministers Fong Chan Onn and Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his defence.

They had testified that they were not cheated nor deceived and understood that the land price did not include interest, hence casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.

In addition, Abdul Gani said the prosecution’s case relied heavily on interpreting the terms of agreement of the purchase of land for PKFZ, that the price of the land included interest. This was denied by the former ministers.

“After deciphering the judgment of the High Court Judge, this office is of the view that the appeal of this case will involve questions of fact and not questions of law. In such a situation, it would be hard to argue that the court had erred in its finding of fact.

“It is trite that an appeal on a finding of fact is unlikely to be overturned at the appellate stage and the likelihood of winning is slim.

“Based on the reasons mentioned above, we decided not to appeal,” he said.

As for Aminulrasyid’s shooting, Abdul Gani said the court had held that there is no intention to cause death as required for a conviction under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

He said while the AGC disagrees with the ruling, it can no longer appeal the case because the case has already reached the Court of Appeal, and cases that started at the lower courts cannot be appealed to the Federal Court.

In response to Surendran’s criticism for not bringing up the Inspector-General of Police’s Standing Orders (IGPSO) in the prosecution, Abdul Gani said the document spells out when a police officer may discharge his firearm and whom is to decide when it is necessary, hence is not essential to proving the case.

He also points out that the court made no comments in its judgment whether the non-tendering of the IGPSO was detrimental to the prosecution’s case.

“The essential elements in proving the charge against the accused is that the accused had committed the act with the intention of causing death to Aminulrasyid.

“The IGPSO was not relevant at all in proving the charge,” he said.

On Shahril Jaafar’s acquittal for Chee’s murder, the attorney-general said the prosecution had conducted the case “without flaws”.

“The acquittal by the High Court was solely on the basis of a third contributor in the DNA sample found on the victim. The appeal is pending at the Court of Appeal,” he said.