The case of a good Attorney-General

It’s clear from his actions so far that this Attorney-General is not going to be helpful to the cause of democracy and the rule of law in this country. Some are already saying he will turn out to be a disaster. First he disbanded the special Task Force on 1MDB; to the bewilderment of most people. He certainly does not have any power to disband a lawfully created government investigative body. Looks like he has more power than the Cabinet. Then he withdrew the sedition charge against Ali Tinju. He said this was due to a lack of evidence, but if this were true then why was Ali charged in the first place? Did the AG’s Chamber’s direct the police to get more evidence or clarification before withdrawing the case? Overruling his own office’s previous decision is no small matter, and it is not something that he should do lightly.

The Attorney-General must not hide behind his “discretionary powers”. All discretions must be used and applied fairly in the interest of justice. There is no such thing as ‘absolute discretion”. Discretions are either fairly and justly applied or they are not. These discretionary powers are not meant to justify any decision that the Attorney-General makes on a whim; these decisions must be made on some reasonable basis.

Then we have the arrest of Khairuddin Abu Hassan on some ridiculous charge  of undermining the nations institutions, according to the IGP. Not satisfied with the arrest and the ban on his travel; and despite his willingness to cooperate with the Police by agreeing to give his statement to Bukit Aman, Khairuddin was remanded in custody for six days. Normally a remand application would be left to the Investigating Officer, but here a DPP from Chambers had to be brought in, and present at Dang Wangi. This is pure harassment on the part of the government, and this is only possible with the agreement of the Attorney-General.

A good Attorney-General knows that he owes his duties firstly to the Constitution and the laws of the country. He is clear in his mind that the Prime Minister is a person who is also subject to the law. He will  not hesitate to act against the Prime Minister if he has to. The Prime Minister is his superior but a good Attorney-General knows he is first the servant of the state. A good Attorney-General acknowledges and appreciates the distinction between the interest of the state or ” national interest” with the personal interest of the Prime Minister. If he can’t tell the difference, then he should not be holding that office. When he exercises his powers, he must not only appear to be doing so in accordance with the law and in the interests of the public, but also without any personal bias to save the Prime Minister.

So how can the public know what motivates the AG from deciding  on any matter  one way or the other? The public will only know and be satisfied if he explains the basis of that decision. That’s why a good Attorney-General accepts he is accountable to the public for his decision, and justifies his action based on the  interest of justice.  What he cannot do is stay in his office, keep quiet and expect people to believe or assume that he is always doing things properly.

I call on the Attorney-General to appear at a Press conference and explain why he did what he did with the Task Force, with Ali Tinju’s case and what will he do with the remaining sedition cases involving opposition and other activists. He needs to show that he is consistent and willing to review other sedition cases, and that Ali Tinju was not a special one for him. Keeping quiet is an unacceptable way to conduct oneself, especially in a case where the interest of the public looms largely.

The Attorney General knows the law well, and as a former judge he knows that judges are required to give reasons for their decisions. He should be doing the same, and must not emulate his boss who has a penchant for dismissing questions he finds uncomfortable to answer. -zaid.my