Mat Zain Ibrahim
IF YDP AGONG CAN BE DECIEVED,WORST THINGS CAN HAPPEN TO US
The Attorney General has been challenged to account for the three expert reports, he was alleged to have fabricated in an investigation into a particular case. Notwithstanding mounting public outrage for the AG to come clean on this issue,he chose to maintain a deafening silence, instead of making known his position.
Should he finds it tough though, to account for all the three,which is understandable, he should at least show his sincerity by giving an account for just one of them. Any one of the three that he is comfortable with, will do.
For the benefit of all, the first expert report was dated 26 October 1998.The said report together with the second expert report was properly tendered during the Black-Eye RCI proceedings in 1999, which was duly recorded by the Commissioners. However, before the RCI’s final report was presented to YDP Agong ,the said first report went missing.
No other persons other than the maker of the documents and the AG himself have personal interests over those expert reports.
The onus to account for the making and the subsequent disappearance of the said report dated 26.10.1998 before it reached The Agong, lies solely on Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail,the AG. Fabrication of evidence is one thing, how it was disposed of, is another.
If such a disloyal and despicable act can befall on the King, then more serious and heinous act can befall on His ordinary subjects.More worrying when the AG appears to be immune to criminal prosecutions,ostentatiously protected by the powers that be.
If making the first expert report to disappear suddenly, before it was presented to the Agong, is no big deal to the AG,then the sudden and timely appearance of a “suicide note” in the late Teoh Beng Hock’s Inquest and making the material CCTV footage to disappear into thin air, in Allayarham Ahmad Sarbani’s Inquest,are just peanuts to him.
The “now you see,now you don’t” tricks have been practiced one too many times right before our eyes, to the extent that not even a simple minded person, like many of us, can accept them as mere coincidences any more.
Prosecution of an AG
Quite many people hold the perception that the AG cannot be prosecuted in any criminal courts, except by himself, since he is also the one and only Public Prosecutor.This contention however is unfortunately inaccurate.
For the avoidance of doubts, Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC),is quoted below;
“The Public Prosecutor may appoint fit and proper persons to be Deputy Public Prosecutors who shall be under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor and may exercise all or any of the rights or powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers express to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally and he may designate any of the Deputy Public Prosecutors as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors.”
Quite simply, this passage means, that a DPP can do what the AG can, except which the AG has to do personally, as required by law which no other DPP can do on his behalf,under any circumstances. Such as the following;
a)Appointment of DPPs under Section 376(4)CPC.
b)Transfer of cases from Majistrate/Session Courts to The High Court under Sec.418A CPC.
c)Proceedings against the editor,proprietor,printer or publisher etc under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 under Section 68(2)CPC.
d)Any others specified as above under any laws.
For the records,the Solicitor General only have the powers of a DPP.Like any other DPPs the SG can exercise all the powers of the AG except those meant to be done by the AG personally (There is no such provisions for a Deputy AG or Acting AG).
It is clear from the above explanation that any DPP for that matter, from a one day old DPP,to the most senior in their hierarchy,the Solicitor General included, have the powers to prosecute the AG if they want to, or by anyone amongst them who have the courage and will.No one can stop them,not even the Prime Minister.I stand to be corrected on this.
After all,it was just a DPP and not the Solicitor General or the Head of the Prosecution Department of the AG’s Chambers who closed the investigation on the AG.
As for the Prime Minister,in so far as his authority over the conduct of the AG is concerned, is defined under Article 125(3) to be read together with Article 145(6) of The Constitution.This simply means that when the PM is satisfied that the AG have breached any provision of their code of ethics or for any other reasons,he can represent to the Agong, to appoint a Tribunal to adjudicate the conduct of the AG and thereafter take the appropriate actions based on the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal.
The issue whether the AG can be prosecuted or otherwise should not arise.The laws to deal with this kind of situation have long been in place.
We have in our history where a Chief Justice of the country, being unceremoniously removed from ofiice for writing some letters to the Agong.So why the different treatment when it comes to the Attorney General,when what he did are criminal in nature.
If for some strange reasons, the Cabinet considers that deceiving and/or misleading and/or insulting YDP Agong and/or the Government by the Attorney General so blatantly is still a non-issue, then we are in serious trouble.
IF YDP AGONG CAN BE DECIEVED,WORST THINGS CAN HAPPEN TO US
The Attorney General has been challenged to account for the three expert reports, he was alleged to have fabricated in an investigation into a particular case. Notwithstanding mounting public outrage for the AG to come clean on this issue,he chose to maintain a deafening silence, instead of making known his position.
Should he finds it tough though, to account for all the three,which is understandable, he should at least show his sincerity by giving an account for just one of them. Any one of the three that he is comfortable with, will do.
For the benefit of all, the first expert report was dated 26 October 1998.The said report together with the second expert report was properly tendered during the Black-Eye RCI proceedings in 1999, which was duly recorded by the Commissioners. However, before the RCI’s final report was presented to YDP Agong ,the said first report went missing.
No other persons other than the maker of the documents and the AG himself have personal interests over those expert reports.
The onus to account for the making and the subsequent disappearance of the said report dated 26.10.1998 before it reached The Agong, lies solely on Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail,the AG. Fabrication of evidence is one thing, how it was disposed of, is another.
If such a disloyal and despicable act can befall on the King, then more serious and heinous act can befall on His ordinary subjects.More worrying when the AG appears to be immune to criminal prosecutions,ostentatiously protected by the powers that be.
If making the first expert report to disappear suddenly, before it was presented to the Agong, is no big deal to the AG,then the sudden and timely appearance of a “suicide note” in the late Teoh Beng Hock’s Inquest and making the material CCTV footage to disappear into thin air, in Allayarham Ahmad Sarbani’s Inquest,are just peanuts to him.
The “now you see,now you don’t” tricks have been practiced one too many times right before our eyes, to the extent that not even a simple minded person, like many of us, can accept them as mere coincidences any more.
Prosecution of an AG
Quite many people hold the perception that the AG cannot be prosecuted in any criminal courts, except by himself, since he is also the one and only Public Prosecutor.This contention however is unfortunately inaccurate.
For the avoidance of doubts, Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code(CPC),is quoted below;
“The Public Prosecutor may appoint fit and proper persons to be Deputy Public Prosecutors who shall be under the general control and direction of the Public Prosecutor and may exercise all or any of the rights or powers vested in or exercisable by the Public Prosecutor by or under this Code or any other written law except any rights or powers express to be exercisable by the Public Prosecutor personally and he may designate any of the Deputy Public Prosecutors as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutors.”
Quite simply, this passage means, that a DPP can do what the AG can, except which the AG has to do personally, as required by law which no other DPP can do on his behalf,under any circumstances. Such as the following;
a)Appointment of DPPs under Section 376(4)CPC.
b)Transfer of cases from Majistrate/Session Courts to The High Court under Sec.418A CPC.
c)Proceedings against the editor,proprietor,printer or publisher etc under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 under Section 68(2)CPC.
d)Any others specified as above under any laws.
For the records,the Solicitor General only have the powers of a DPP.Like any other DPPs the SG can exercise all the powers of the AG except those meant to be done by the AG personally (There is no such provisions for a Deputy AG or Acting AG).
It is clear from the above explanation that any DPP for that matter, from a one day old DPP,to the most senior in their hierarchy,the Solicitor General included, have the powers to prosecute the AG if they want to, or by anyone amongst them who have the courage and will.No one can stop them,not even the Prime Minister.I stand to be corrected on this.
After all,it was just a DPP and not the Solicitor General or the Head of the Prosecution Department of the AG’s Chambers who closed the investigation on the AG.
As for the Prime Minister,in so far as his authority over the conduct of the AG is concerned, is defined under Article 125(3) to be read together with Article 145(6) of The Constitution.This simply means that when the PM is satisfied that the AG have breached any provision of their code of ethics or for any other reasons,he can represent to the Agong, to appoint a Tribunal to adjudicate the conduct of the AG and thereafter take the appropriate actions based on the findings and recommendations of the Tribunal.
The issue whether the AG can be prosecuted or otherwise should not arise.The laws to deal with this kind of situation have long been in place.
We have in our history where a Chief Justice of the country, being unceremoniously removed from ofiice for writing some letters to the Agong.So why the different treatment when it comes to the Attorney General,when what he did are criminal in nature.
If for some strange reasons, the Cabinet considers that deceiving and/or misleading and/or insulting YDP Agong and/or the Government by the Attorney General so blatantly is still a non-issue, then we are in serious trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment