MP SPEAKS | In any criminal prosecution, any criminal charge preferred against any offender is, in actual fact, being brought on behalf of the people.
Yes, the state via the public prosecutor would arraign the offender in court.
But such a prosecution has never been intended for personal ventures or personal vendetta.
The state via the office of the public prosecutor, in essence, represents the people on the street.
But, lo and behold, what has really happened to the criminal charges brought against Riza Aziz?
The suspect who was duly charged by the Pakatan Harapan government, only to be temporarily discharged by the court at the request of the public prosecutor in the Perikatan Nasional government.
Is this really a joke?
Yes, he was merely awarded a temporary release by the court – a discharge not amounting to an acquittal or popularly branded by the legal fraternity as "DNAA".
Technically, he may be re-charged in court even though, in my view, it is highly unlikely, given the fact that we are currently under the new government which has never been mandated by the people via any democratic process.
Was it wrong for the prosecution to offer the offender the DNAA? With the greatest respect, my answer would be a resounding yes.
It was absolutely wrong. Not one iota of doubt about it. Why?
As far as I am concerned, the answer is very simple and straightforward.
The offender indulged in a mega financial scandal involving the people's billions of ringgit.
The 1MDB scandal had unduly tarnished our image as a kleptocratic government.
Globally, we became a laughing stock. It has also substantially ruined our economy.
It goes without saying that the people really suffered.
As an MP, I vividly remember how the Parliament was improperly used to legitimise the scandal!
Can the present prime minister deny that he was dropped from the office of the deputy prime minister not due to the IMDB scandal?
Be that as it may, the offender ought to be arrested, prosecuted, charged and tried in court and duly and severely punished if he is found guilty. There is no other alternative.
With the greatest respect, the plea bargain unduly entered into between the prosecution and the offender resulting in his DNAA is bewildering and laughable at the same time.
The media reported that his temporary release was conditioned upon his agreement to return to the state a substantial sum of money.
But, how on earth, would the prosecution be able to convince itself that such money was purely clean?
The fact that it decided to arraign him under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2011 speaks volumes about the inherent nature of the dirty money.
Yes, the laundered money has to be duly returned. It belongs to the people.
But, as they say, the buck does not stop there. The offender must also be severely punished within the full force of the law.
It is the sacrosanct duty of the public prosecutor, being the agency representing the nation, to ensure not only to reclaim the laundered money from the offender but to also send him to prison.
That is what the people badly wanted the prosecution to do when they voted out the BN government during the last general election.
Does the prosecution think such a historic moment on May 9, 2018, had nothing to do with the 1MDB saga?
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is the Member of Parliament for Sepang. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.