Proving or debunking claims of selective prosecution

 

So much has been said and spoken following Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on Monday.

While the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) was trying hard to justify its request, it could only muster a one-sentence reaction – the reasons were cogent and presented at the High Court.

But many rightful thinking Malaysians like Muda central executive committee member Nurainie Haziqah Shafi’i have described the reactions as having raised even more questions rather than clearing the air.

She questioned the AGC’s logic behind the decision especially after the prosecution managed to establish a prima facie case against Zahid in the criminal trial.

“If the reasons presented by the prosecution (to request for DNAA) were described as solid or ‘cogent’, are they saying the case presented by previous deputy public prosecutor Raja Rozela Raja Toran was defective, unconvincing, and weak?” she was quoted by Malaysiakini as saying.

Elsewhere, sharp-tongued politicians could not resist saying their customary reactions and in the process, it opened a whole gamut of allegations, claims, and counterclaims.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi

The name-calling and pointed fingers have emerged and in the process, some not-so-involved people and organisations including the judiciary have been falsely accused.

Also in the firing line are an array of big-wigs in previous governments including former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, and former finance minister Lim Guan Eng.

Anwar Ibrahim’s “Reformasi” is dead, declared Bersatu Youth chief Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal.

“What happened today is a dark moment in the country’s judicial history. Someone with 47 charges that was on trial for four years and has almost reached the ‘finish line’ was given the DNAA,” he declared.

But did “Reformasi” exist in the first place or was it just a slogan created 25 years ago to muster support for the then-fledgling Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat?

Even former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin could not resist a dig at DAP charging that the party was reduced to what they used to accuse MCA of being.

Khairy and Najib

In his Instagram post, Khairy also labelled DAP as a “running dog and (an) enabler of abuse of power”.

Prophetic words indeed. Wasn’t it the same Khairy who sat with convicted Najib Abdul Razak in a campaign video before the 14th general election?

Wasn’t he the one who then branded the opposition exposé of Najib’s involvement in the 1MDB scandal as “fitnah”?

He may not have been as condescending as two former ministers - Salleh Said Keruak and Abdul Rahman Dahlan - who tried hard but failed to convince the masses of Najib’s involvement.

As the voices grow louder, I repeat what I said after the AGC slipped up in the appeal against the acquittal of Najib and former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy.

Former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin

I wrote: “So, in the case of Najib and Arul, what went wrong, and who is responsible?

“Was this an oversight, incompetence, or deliberate action as the nation debates the outcome of the flaws in these fundamental requirements?”

In Zahid’s case, deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar told the High Court that the accused raised a very serious issue in his letters of representation, namely regarding the allegation that he was a victim of selective prosecution by the previous government.

Same old claim of selective prosecution

Will this fall under the category of “cogent”? How does one prove or debunk claims of selective prosecution? Does anyone think about the painstaking efforts put in by enforcement agencies who investigated the crime?

Does the evidence they unearthed mean nothing? Does one man’s claim without substantiation supersede the evidence that had been gathered and presented?

In February, I wrote: “This ‘selective prosecution’ claim has been contagious”, and I asked: “Why are there always loud cries of ‘selective prosecution’ when politicians are charged with criminal offences? Why is it that when big-wigs are charged, it is the same issue of ‘One rule for us and a different rule for them’?”

“These are screams of desperation and have been repeatedly used outside the courts as if they are proclamations of innocence.

“A simple understanding of the phrase - selective prosecution - entails an argument that persons of different ages, races, religions, genders, or political affiliations were engaged in the same illegal acts but only one person was charged.

“Why is the AGC pandering and paying heed to such claims which is akin to admitting that “many of us did commit the crime of money laundering but I am being singled out for prosecution.”

So, what will happen when others who were charged during the 2018-2020 period, through their lawyers, send letters of representation claiming selective prosecution? Will the AGC then withdraw the charges? - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com

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