Zahid’s passport: What message is AGC trying to send?

 

When the Court of Appeal unanimously decided to return the passport of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, I was flabbergasted indeed.

Legally speaking, the court had no choice but to grant the application by the accused as the learned deputy public prosecutor (DPP) categorically told the court that he was instructed not to raise any objection to the accused's application.

Yes, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to object. But, rest assured, I have an objection.

Truth be told, the decision by the AGC not to object, let alone vehemently object to the accused's application, with due respect, left much to be desired.

Yes, the decision by the AGC, with due respect, did not augur well for the rule of law in the country. The principle of equality before the law seems to have been unduly shattered.

Frankly speaking, I am not too sure what message was the AGC trying to drive home.

However, the accused, who is holding a high government post, must realise that he still remains an accused person who is currently facing 47 criminal charges - including an alleged criminal breach of trust of RM31 million belonging to the charitable foundation Yayasan Akalbudi, which he allegedly helms.

Worse, he has been called to defence by the court. It means the prima facie case was proven against him. You don’t have to be a lawyer to appreciate the seriousness of the charges levelled against him.

I fully subscribe to the view that the accused is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes, all accused persons in this country are entitled to be duly protected under the time-honoured credo of criminal law, that is presumption of innocence.

But the issue of the court's discretion to impound the passport is a totally different ballgame. The presumption of innocence and the right of the court to impound the accused's passport are poles apart.

In a criminal case, it is normal for the court in granting bail to the accused - to simultaneously impose certain conditions to the said bail such as the accused's passport needing to be impounded.

In dealing with alleged criminals, it is not wrong for the court to presume the worst-case scenario - namely by assuming that there is a strong likelihood that the accused would be a flight risk. Hence the impoundment of the accused's passport is one of the legal and approved ways to avoid such a risk.

It was reported in the media that the accused claimed that he badly needed his passport as he needs to do his ministerial job by travelling abroad.

A reasonable excuse but the accused should have a deep thought on that issue at the very outset when he was offered the post in the cabinet. He should have duly considered that national interest always trumps personal interest.

Be that as it may, he should have flatly declined the offer of being appointed as a deputy prime minister so that he does not have to do any ministerial job in Malaysia or abroad.

Like it or not, the latest decision of the court may not only attract opprobrium from the people but it also cements the fear that the incidence of this kind might happen one day seems to have been duly confirmed.

The latest decision of the court might not send a rosy message to the government.

What is certain, the decision may create lingering doubts in the mind of investors on the issue of the rule of law in Malaysia.

Let us hope this bewildering decision is not really a beginning of a future nightmare. - Mkini

---

MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law).

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.