As Najib is not a ‘public official’, he is untouchable

YOURSAY | ‘The law is an ass, it is said. The judge chose to interpret it to create two different kinds of citizens.’

Judge explains why Najib is not a public official

Vijay47: I will concede that shocking and disappointing as his decision is, Justice Abu Bakar Jais' hands and mind are chained by the relevant articles of our constitution.

No doubt, legal minds within the Malaysiakini fraternity will present alternate interpretations of the law.

But I am confused a bit, no, considerably, by something that the judge said, that the plaintiffs "must first prove the offices that Najib occupies - as prime minister, finance minister, BN chairperson and Umno president - are all public offices."

I can understand the prime minister and finance minister part, but the other two positions are related to political affiliation. Did Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the others actually suggest that BN and Umno posts are equally public offices?

In any case, Justice Abu Bakar, it was mighty sporting of you to explain away PM Najib Abdul Razak's own concession that the plaintiffs were attempting to drive him from "public office". Perhaps that slip falls under "to err is human", even for ‘divinities’ like Najib.

Dingy: Najib was sued for malfeasance - that is, wrongdoing by a public official. According to the judge's ruling, he is not a public official, hence cannot be sued for wrongdoing.

Ironically, he receives his remuneration from a public fund for performing a public duty. In simple language, he is above the law.

Iiiizzzziiii: In his exalted wisdom, the judge has given an interpretation on what a public officer is, but I wonder if he knows the repercussions and consequences his decision means for all future aspirants to the prime minister’s seat.

This is a slap in the face for all the law-abiding citizens in the country. It means a sitting PM is above the law and is untouchable. He or she can do anything under the sun. The so-called Rukunegara means nothing. So, where is the check and balance among the three branches of government - judiciary, executive and legislative?

Anyway, we are where we are because of deep-rooted, prevailing and unabated corruption in the country. We only have ourselves to blame.

Clever Voter: The explanation made on the judgment by the High Court is not surprising. The judiciary is no longer neutral, it remains subservient to the number one executive.

It is not only contradictory but wrong to consider the position of prime minister not as a member of public office. What then is this position in the context of public interest?

There is a misplaced notion that prime minister is above the law. Lacking courage to even acknowledge the responsibility of PM in 1MDB is bad, what is there left except an authoritarian state where rule of law is not even respected.

The future of the country is at stake when public interest becomes secondary and abuse of law becomes a way of life.

No wonder, the judiciary is now even being seen as a public service and a beneficiary of a patronage system that rewards individual loyalty to the ruling political party rather than to interest of the nation.

Legit: It sounds so ridiculous that “members of the administration” are not subject to the laws of the country. Then what laws are they subject to or are they all above the law? Can they do anything and yet cannot be charged?

Then why are we making so much noise about IMDB, SRC and the RM2.6 billion in MO1's (Malaysian Official 1) account?

SusahKes: If the PM is not defined as a public servant, then how is he being remunerated? Isn't it from public funds?

I am pretty sure the PM is also subjected to the same salary scale that is applicable to all other civil and public service employees, albeit he will be remunerated as a PM.

That being the case, why are ministers, etc, not be deemed to be public servants, especially if their salaries are being paid from public funds?

Ravinder: The law is an ass, it is said. It needs to be interpreted by those applying it.

The judge chose to interpret the law to create two different kinds of citizens. He said those who are administering the country (the administrative service) are above the law, unlike the rest of the citizens.

It is as if the "administrative" class are Martians, sent to Earth to administer it, and are therefore not answerable to the Earthlings they are lording over.

Sri Ram: Ruling on Dr M's suit 'wrong as wrong can be'

Hang Babeuf: We all know of sad cases where the law (known at times to be "an ass") is on one side of a matter and good human judgement and common sense on the other.

Justice Abu Bakar here invokes that awareness in order to justify his worrying stance. But, if former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram is right, then the law and good common sense and judgment stand together here on one side, and Judge Abu Bakar stands, well, nowhere.

An interesting judicial predicament. Let us see if there is an appeal and how the matter is finally resolved. Will Justice Abu Bakar's ruling be upheld? Or will it be made to appear even more puzzling? And shown to be even more curious than it may now look?

FairMind: If the PM sells an apple for RM1 but did not deliver the apple, he is sued under the law of contract.

It's as simple as that - there's no relevance in looking into the Federal Constitution and Interpretations Act in a breach of contract to argue that he is not a public officer and justify the reason for throwing out the suit.

In a similar vein, if he steals or kills someone, can he be termed as "non-public officer" under the federal constitution and Interpretations Act and be let off scot-free?

If that be the case, then the PM will become virtually untouchable in law with this legal precedence.

Frankly, I am appalled that a High Court judge cannot differentiate this basic principle of law and the relevance of law applying to each case. Imagine how we would stand in the international arena and look by our own legal students.

Negarawan: "Justice Abu Bakar further noted his judgment may result in him being unpopular but the court should decide a case based only on the laws applicable."

Such personal consideration in the written judgment clearly reveals the lack of confidence and poor command of the law of the judge concerned.- Mkini