Separate the Attorney-General’s powers to correct a flaw in Malaysian legal system !

Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail

Revise Attorney-General's powers

There is a flaw in our system, inherited since before Independence, that may prevent the public from giving their complete trust.

THE political challenges faced by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak continue to mount. He has issued several denials but his detractors are showing no sign of stopping.

Last week, internationally respected newspaper The Wall Street Journal published a story alleging that money from 1MDB somehow found its way into Najib’s personal bank accounts. Najib has denied any wrongdoing and he is said to be mulling legal action against the newspaper.

The response by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail is particularly noteworthy.

According to Gani, a multi-agency task force will probe the allegation, looking into the trail of money from 1MDB and examining if there has been any wrongdoing.

Even though Gani did not spell it out word by word, the implication is that our Prime Minister has not stopped agencies in his own Government from conducting what could become a criminal probe against him.

This is a healthy step and it is also the right decision by the Prime Minister. The whole saga has been a protracted one and I look forward to its conclusion.

According to reports that cited Gani, the multi-agency investigation team comprises the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the police and our central bank, Bank Negara.

I welcome the formation of this special team. It is imperative that all allegations are investigated thoroughly. To do so does indeed require cooperation from various agencies.

Having said that, I have a concern about how the public will react once this team concludes the investigation.

The most important element in any probe that involves public figures is public confidence. For the public to accept the outcome of the investigation, they must believe in the integrity of the agencies.

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in our system that may prevent the public from giving their complete trust. We inherited that flaw since before Independence and until today we have never tried to fix it.

The flaw centres on the dual roles of the Attorney-General. He is the principal legal adviser to the Government and he is also the one with sole discretion to decide whether or not to prosecute.

Yes, there are safeguards to ensure he makes prosecutorial decisions with independence and integrity. But that is a matter of procedures.

We are talking about a high-profile investigation where public confidence and public perception are just as important as everything else.

Imagine a situation where the investigation team finds that the allegations are false. They then submit their files to the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General then would logically decide that there will be no prosecution. How will the public react to this?

My worry is that the public will simplistically say that we are seeing a cover-up. Of course, we will not know the detailed findings from the investigation and we can’t expect the agencies to be disclosing information in great detail either.

But we may end up with the public accusing the Attorney-General of merely protecting his boss whom he has been advising all this while. That would be most unfortunate.

However, we cannot blame the public for not fully trusting the system. Stories after stories have been told – whether concocted or true – about allegedly selective prosecution.

In our work on the MACC, we encountered many of these allegations. Critics target the MACC even when the agency has done its job to investigate, without realising that prosecution powers lie with the Attorney-General and not the MACC.

And among those who do know that prosecution is the discretion of the Attorney-General, a perception has developed that some people are always safe from prosecution, because they feel the Attorney-General has a conflict of interest. How can he be expected to prosecute the very people he is supposed to advise?

The fusion of the Attorney-General’s roles – as legal adviser to the Government and as public prosecutor – has resulted in decreased trust in the integrity of the system.

In cases that involve the Government, the public may not have full confidence in his decisions regardless of whether or not he is being independent and honest. And this time, it may result in a never-ending misery for the Prime Minister even if he is a victim of political sabotage.

I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have thousands of other things to worry about at this moment in time. But for their own sake, this is a most urgent issue. The credibility of the Prime Minister is at stake here.

The roles of the Attorney-General must be separated. The Attorney-General should continue to advise the Government but we should create a new Public Prosecutor’s Office to decide on prosecution after the investigative agencies have done their jobs. This has to be done as soon as possible.

I appreciate that this is a major step. It requires a constitutional amendment because Article 145(3) of our Federal Constitution currently provides that the Attorney-General has absolute power to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

Additionally, the Criminal Procedures Code too will need to be amended because it currently says: “The Attorney-General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions under this Code”.

The changes should be debated in this parliamentary meeting. If this is not done now, will anyone be able to save the Prime Minister’s credibility, regardless of what the investigation team finds?

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs ( www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

By Wan Saiful Wan Jan thinking liberally

Related posts

Sue or don't sue WSJ's report: RM2.6bil was moved to PM Najib Tun Razak's bank accounts?

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—Malaysian investigators scrutinizing a controversial government investment fund have traced nearly $700 million ...

 Fighting corruption must be serious !

Stupid fellow ! Dr Ling, former Malaysian 
Transport Minister slams Attorney-General

Stupid fellow ! Dr Ling, former Malaysian Transport Minister slams Attorney-General. UTAR Council Chairman Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik speaking to the media regarding UTAR Initiatives and Developments at the Sg Long Campus, Kajang on Tuesday. KAJANG: There was nothing wrong in the land purchase for the Port Klang ... It's only the A-G (attorney-general who) thinks it's a wrong decision. Stupid fellow,” he said at a press conference here yesterday to announce ...

Fighting corruption must be serious !

We must separate the roles of the Attorney-General as legal advisor to the Government and Public Prosecutor who prosecutes cases in court.

IT has become fashionable for critics to express dissatisfaction every time the Auditor-General presents his report to Parliament. So when the second report this year was tabled on June 15, the reaction was generally expected.

But the reaction from Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed is particularly important. Nur Jazlan, who is also Ideas’ Council member this time, says that he is disappointed with the performance of many Government agencies because they have failed to improve.

He also said that not long ago he praised Government officials for showing improvements every time the Auditor-General’s report is published. But he felt compelled to retract that praise because this time it was particularly bad.

He went on to say that many of the problems originate from the attitude of civil servants. Apparently the quality of our civil servants has deteriorated, and they don’t even bother to read the rules.

When the PAC Chairman makes such a bold statement, you know that there is something really wrong in the way civil servants manage our money. It is ironic that the Prime Minister recently announced a bonus for our civil servants despite such abysmal indictment.

Under Nur Jazlan, the PAC has been doing a much better job in identifying weaknesses in Government machinery and in demanding accountability. In fact, thanks to the PAC, the public now knows about the risk posed by Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd, a Government-linked company that has one of the biggest liabilities among Malaysia’s GLCs. The company has been off the audit radar for almost 10 years, despite the large amount of debt that it has accumulated.

The work of bodies like the PAC is important in our push for better governance in the country. The issues the PAC looks into are not necessarily about corruption.

Their responsibility is wider, covering also problems such as leakages and failure to adhere to published policies and procedures.

Fighting corruption, on the other hand, is more commonly associated with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). I am still waiting to see if the MACC would act on a recent admission by Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that a Special Branch report found that around 80% of our border enforcement officers are involved in corruption.

Nevertheless, I am very aware that even if the MACC were to start an investigation, that is only half of the journey. The other half lies outside of the MACC’s jurisdiction, and that is the prosecution of corruption cases.

Our system is designed in such a way that the MACC, just like the police, can only investigate and not prosecute. Prosecution is the sole discretion of the Attorney-General, who doubles up as our Public Prosecutor.

I have no problem with the MACC not having the power to prosecute. In fact, I think it is right to keep prosecutorial powers away from the investigation agency. Back in 2012, we at Ideas looked into this issue and compared the experience of Indonesia and Hong Kong in fighting corruption.

We published the findings in July 2012 and concluded that it really does not matter whether or not the MACC has prosecution power. Instead, what is most important is the integrity of the judiciary and the Attorney-General’s office.

Any effort to improve the quality of MACC, therefore, will have to be accompanied by reform in both the judiciary and the Attorney-General’s Office. Focusing on the MACC alone is not sufficient.

If we want to see a more effective fight against corruption we must separate the roles of the Attorney-General as legal advisor to the Government and Public Prosecutor who prosecutes cases in court.

Let me justify that with a simple analogy using the case of the allegedly corrupt border enforcement officers.

Let’s say the MACC do investigate the allegation and find that the problem runs all the way up to Ministerial level.

The MACC then passes the files to the Attorney-General. How much confidence do we have that the Attorney-General will prosecute his friends in Cabinet?

It is obvious that as legal advisor to the Government, he is conflicted. How can he prosecute the very party he is supposed to advise?

There are actually many more proposals to improve the MACC that deserve public attention. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you search for reports published by the Special Committee on Corruption now chaired by Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang. This bipartisan committee, whose membership consists of members of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, regularly comes up with some very good ideas.

One of those ideas is for the MACC to be given independence in recruiting their own officers. This suggestion has been mooted since 2010 and it makes a lot of sense. To be truly independent, MACC cannot continue to be dependent on seconded staff from the Public Service Commission, because this creates a conflict of loyalty.

But unfortunately, this idea has not received the attention that it deserves from the Government. There are times when I ask myself if our Ministers are really serious in the fight against corruption. For if they are really serious, why are they ignoring sensible ideas coming from a committee whose membership is from among their own colleagues?

Don’t they realise that the longer they choose to do nothing, the more people will feel that they have things to hide?


By Wan Saiful Wan Jan, thinking liberally The Star

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owners for the damages?... 

Who is responsible for slope management? Does the responsibility come with the property bought by the purchaser? THE collapse of a...

Building structural integrity & failure: problems, inspections, damages, defects, testing, diagnosis, repair

Structural integrity and failure is an aspect of engineering which deals with the ability of a structure to support a designed load (w... 

 

 Regulators act on complaints: MIA to name and shame errant professionals ... 

Malaysia's 1MDB's questionable accounts