Law minister Azalina infers the prosecution of Saiful and Muhyiddin was political
Law minister Azalina infers the prosecution of Saiful and Muhyiddin was political
Has the government infringed Article 145 of the Constitution?
In a written answer to a parliamentary question yesterday, Law Minister Azalina Othman, said the Cabinet never gave approval for then attorney general Tommy Thomas to write a letter to the ‘heirs’ of the defunct Sultanate of Sulu, regarding their claim. According to reports, Azalina claimed in a written parliamentary reply to a question;
“For Yang Berhormat’s information, the letter dated September 19, 2019 issued by Tan Sri Tommy Thomas (the attorney general at that time) to the Sulu group never received agreement from the Cabinet.’
Further;
“The action of the former attorney general in issuing the letter containing his own decision without the Cabinet’s approval goes against the principle of collective decision which is practised as enshrined in the Federal Constitution,”
If this is the practice of the current administration, this means the position of attorney general, and with it, public prosecutor, as they are one and the same person in Malaysia is controlled by the political executive, and cabinet, as Azalina espouses. This implies the current attorney general, Idrus Harun has not been acting at his own discretion, but has been seeking permission from the cabinet, before any prosecutions are made.
Idrus Harun as A-G. Independent or works subject to approval of the cabinet?
This also implies the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) also acts upon political decisions, as the MACC must receive permission to pursue any prosecutions.
If this is the case, cabinet over the last 4 months has been approving all of the attorney general’s legal papers, correspondence, and decisions to prosecute individuals. Therefore, the arrests, and prosecutions of Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Muhyiddin Yassin, were political, rather than legal decisions.
This is abhorrent. A legal system under the control of cabinet, which is made up of politicians, who decide who and who not to investigate and prosecute. This is full of conflicts of interest.
Section 3 of Article 145 of the Malaysian Constitution states: “(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence”.
What the law minister is advocating and accusing former attorney general Thomas of not seeking permission before he acted, is not the right of the cabinet to purview.
The Law Minster now has two very pertinent questions to answer;
Did cabinet approve the arrest and prosecution of Wan Saiful Wan Jan, and Muhyiddin Yassin?
Why does this administration have the right to breach Article 145 of the Malaysian Constitution?
Who actually made the decision to prosecute?
Azalina claims “the principle of collective decision” was required before the former attorney general issued any letters. There is no such obligation written in Article 145 of the Constitution, pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of the attorney general. Azalina has clearly misled parliament and should immediately clarify her statement. Azalina has also contradicted the prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, where he said the MACC was an independent body.
By definition, cabinet approval, or go ahead for any investigation, and prosecution is a political decision. The extent of cabinet control over the attorney general is a very scary revelation for Malaysia’s legal system.
Subscribe Below:
Article 145 of the Malaysian Constitution
Exert from Borneo Post (Sometimes portals modify their stories)
https://www.theborneopost.com/2023/03/28/azalina-cabinet-didnt-approve-tommy-thomass-2019-letter-to-sulu-heirs-ex-ag-to-be-gagged/
Isn't there a difference between initiating prosecution and writing to a litigant who is suing the government. AG is the legal advisor to the government and represents the government which is governed by the Cabinet. It is stretching the imagination too far equating Tommy Thomas writing to the plaintiff and Idrus Harun initiating a prosecution. In fact what Azalina said is correct. Tommy Thomas should have consulted the Cabinet to get guidance before writing to the Sulu heirs who are suing the Malaysian Government owned company but Idris Harus should not consult the cabinet if he wants to prosecute any one. The distinct bias of the author is obvious here. This article is a disappointment and it is what is known as "batu api" Stirring a can of red and black ants to cause confusion and chaos. Shameful.
The attorney general does indeed have such discretionary powers at law and under the constitution to exercise. if this power of absolute discretion is taken away from him to prosecute the offenders, then the government with the largest number of members of parliament can decide the destiny of an offender by not doing any thing about a criminal case and the guilty party is free to commit more crimes.
This country government machinery be it judiciary, police or immigration or the prison department can be manipulated and controlled by mob rule.
The root cause of this country failure to function and allow competency and meritocracy to flourish is due to two deficiencies of the collective mind of the masses to manifest at every level of society:
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ”
― Alvin Toffler (4 Oct 1928- 27 June 2016)
He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
Sir William Drummond (26 Sept 1769-29 March 1828)
Azalina without being challenged and confronted by the statement she made in parliament, in the house full of members who are supposed to be able to function intellectually and know the constitutional laws . if not being thus questioned, will she not make more personal prejudices statements and turn them into public policies?