Najib appointed AG hammered by counsel.

 

Former AG Apandi put under hammer over decision to clear Najib of wrongdoing 

(OSTB : Shouldnt it be 'put under microscope' ?)

• Apandi said decision based on investigations at that time
• defamation against Kit Siang for allegedly defaming him on his role in 1MDB 
• Sangeet Kaur Deo continued to grill Apandi 
• questioned the NFA despite charges by foreign authorities at that time
• Sangeet: NFA commonly used to closing an investigation
• Apandi: Yes.
• Sangeet: You never stopped further investigation of the 1MDB?
• Apandi: Yes.
• Sangeet: Between Jan 2016 - 2018 you directed further investigation?
• Apandi: Yes.
• Sangeet: how many times MACC investigations on 1MDB?
• Apandi: Ten times or so.
• Sangeet: Jan 2016 you cleared Najib of RM2.6b.  
• Apandi: ..I did not clear him of any other offences because investigation ongoing
• nobody charged in 1MDB scandal when he was AG 
• Apandi aware several individuals charged by other countries 
• Sangeet: Do you agree all around world, other countries begun 1MDB charges?
• Apandi: I agree.
• Sangeet: US, S'pore begun charges relating to 1MDB
• Apandi: Yes.
• He did not initiate MLA from other counties to not 'prejudice' local probes

My comments :

The most powerful job or position in the country - more powerful than the Prime Minister, the YDP Agong, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or the Chief of the Armed Forces is none other than the Attorney General. The AG is the most powerful job in the country. Period.

Because according to the Law, the AG and the AG alone, has the sole and unquestionable discretion and prerogative to prosecute or NOT prosecute anyone for criminal breech of the Laws. The AG can never be questioned for any of his decisions. 

And by Law no one can tell the AG to prosecute or not prosecute a case or to drop a prosecution that has started in the Court. Not the Prime Minister or the YDP Agong. Only the AG can make such a decision.

The AG cannot be brought to face any charges in Court over how he performed his job or did not perform his job. The Law cannot touch the AG for his ommissions and commissions in carrying out his duties. For example if an AG decided not to present some evidence available to him to prosecute a case or the AG did not pursue a line of questioning in a case then the AG cannot be held liable. The public can sue the doctor at the General Hospital for malpractice but the public cannot sue the AG for the same. Practically the AG is actually "above the law".  By this definition, the AG can be deemed a 'god'.

This applies to other AGs anywhere else in the world.  

However if an individual AG has committed a crime under the Law - for example he threw garbage into the lake at Putrajaya or he was arrested for drunk driving or he accepted some form of gratification in exchange for some favours (aka accepting bribes or engaging in corrupt practises)  - then of course that individual AG is subject to the normal investigations and prosecution, again by the AG's Chambers. 

The question is what if an AG committed a wrong in doing his job but not for any gratification or bribe but out of political, religious, racial and ideological convictions? How do you prove that? How do you prosecute that?

To conclude here is a joke I read over 50  years ago (in the Reader's Digest). A court case come to its end on a Friday. The Judge says the Court will convene on the Monday next where he will deliver his decision. The Accused who is convinced that he is innocent interrupts the Judge quite loudly and demands that the Judge deliver his decision on the spot. The Judge explains that it will take him some time to arrange his notes and write down his judgement which he repeats he will get done by the Monday. The Accused is adamant and raises his voice at the Judge again. The Judge gets irritated and snaps back 'You will hear my decision first thing Monday morning and let me assure you that you will not like it either'. 

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.