PETALING JAYA: Former attorney-general Tommy Thomas said Dr Mahathir Mohamad informed him to avoid any open court proceedings in attempts to extradite controversial preacher Dr Zakir Naik.
The lawyer said he met the then prime minister to brief him on the Naik issue sometime in 2018.
Prior to his meeting with Mahathir, the Indian high commissioner met Thomas to discuss Naik and they wanted Malaysia to “expel him from our shores”.
“He (high commissioner Shri Mridul Kumar) was frank. The India-Malaysia relations would not be on an even keel unless the ZN issue was resolved to India’s satisfaction.
“He also agreed that instituting extradition proceedings against Naik in our courts would exacerbate tension.
“I then briefed Tun (Mahathir) on the matter and he agreed any form of court action must be avoided at all cost because that was what exactly Naik would prefer; a platform for him to spew his poison,” Thomas wrote in his memoir, “My Story: Justice in the Wilderness”, on sale now.
He also said he suggested for Naik to be expelled from Malaysia so that “it would be his responsibility to find a home other than India”.
However, he said Mahathir did not accept this solution and told him to leave the matter to him.
“Over time, when I brought up the Naik matter, his response was the same, and that no third country was willing to accept him,” he added.
Thomas said he also spoke to Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador over Naik and was told the police wanted to have Naik removed from Malaysia.
“Tan Sri Hamid said despite their best endeavours, no Muslim country in the world wanted Naik.
“I have mentioned several countries but IGP replied that each of the countries had declined to have Naik,” he said.
Thomas went on to say he was “puzzled” at why his advice over Naik was not accepted by Mahathir.
“At that time, Tun was concerned with adverse religious and racial sentiment concerning the expulsion of Naik (not extradition).
“Tun was constantly haranguing the Malays for being indolent,” Thomas said, adding that if Mahathir had taken his advice and acted on it, Pakatan Harapan would not have suffered politically for long.
Thomas said that the “controversial and notorious” figure was granted permanent resident status by then deputy prime minister and home affairs minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, apparently against the advice of the Special Branch.
“The principal criticisms against Zakir Naik were that he publicly attacked other religions, and he was partisan to PAS and Umno, thereby interfering with our domestic politics. As a foreigner, he had no business engaging in either activity.
“So long as Umno was in power, Zakir Naik had a safe haven in Malaysia. India had written formally to Malaysia seeking his extradition while Najib was prime minister. It was never considered.”
U-turn on ratifying Rome Statute
Thomas also spoke about PH’s decision to ratify the Rome Statute had “substantially damaged the credibility of the coalition”. The Rome Statute is important as it established the International Criminal Court.
“The disinformation surrounding the Rome Statute was classic Trump-style politics and it succeeded.”
He said some academics had made a false case to frighten Malaysians.
Thomas pointed out then foreign minister Saifuddin Abdullah was “most keen for Malaysia to sign on”, and the former minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for national unity, P Waytha Moorthy, was its biggest backer.
The lawyer said both ministers faced resistance from the civil service, led by the AG’s Chambers and Wisma Putra over the Rome Statute, prompting him to call for a meeting and invited NGOs, as well as Waytha and Saifuddin to sit with the civil servants.
“I attended and gave my personal opinion favouring entry. Noor Farida Ariffin, former ambassador to The Hague and also senior AGC officer, was happy with my advice.
“I followed up with an opinion to the prime minister and briefed him,” Thomas said.
He also said he was invited to the Conference of Rulers and briefed most of the state rulers after the Rome Statute became controversial.
“I explained the legal position and gave my opinion.
“Many questions were asked and I endeavoured to answer to the best of my ability. It was a frank discussion lasting about 45 minutes,” Thomas added.
He cheekily mentioned that the session was “similar to submitting to a court of nine judges” when he had a brief conversation with the grand chamberlain after the meeting. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.