An indelible stain on Malaysia's legal systems
'fake statements' by Apandi 1MDB did not commit any offence,
The late great American journalist, Edward R. Murrow said, “No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices
Rulers want 1MDB probe wrapped up, wrongdoers punished
AG: PM 'has no hand' in how we handle 1MDBThe basic structure is to be decided by the judiciary and no other entity like the office of the attorney-general . which is vital for democratic society, and it is necessary to respect this
we judge you by what you do, not by what you claim to be.
You declared that you are independent and the PM has no influence over how you act with regard to 1MDB. But your actions indicate the contrary.
Immediately after your constitutionally dubious replacement of Abdul Gani Patail, you did two things.
One, you declared that the draft charge sheet against PM Najib Abdul Razak, as published by Sarawak Report, is a fake and a conspiracy to topple Najib. Two, you disbanded the special task force which is investigating 1MDB.
Subsequent events have indicated that the charge sheet is genuine, as proven by inspector-general of police’s (IGP) series of harassment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Bank Negara over the leakage of such evidence to Sarawak Report, and Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan’s elaboration of PM’s “flurry of actions” as a strike for self-preservation.
And your unannounced action to disband the special task force, which had immediately halted the momentum of probe on 1MDB and Najib’s RM2.6 billion, was obviously motivated to protect the PM, as there is no conceivable justification for such action.Apandi, you can declare whatever legal credentials and legal professionalism as you like, but your public credibility is zero, particularly after your outburst of threats to the public not to disagree with you.
The Parliament being creation of the constitution, it cannot be the case that the creation destroys the creator.
the news of their impending arrest by the MACC leaked out
Najib and the two missing persons were on the verge of being charge for allegedly misappropriating RM42 million belonging to SRC International when then Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, was abruptly relieved of his job on July 27
the Attorney-General's Chambers refusal to prosecute 1MDB for providing inaccurate information and failing to give full disclosure when it sought approval from Bank Negara for overseas investment.
This was despite the central bank's recommendation for legal action against 1MDB,which was rejected by the Attorney-General's Chambers.To a question on speculation being rife that Najib changed the attorney-general to cover up a charge sheet on corruption prepared against him, Apandi made a vehement denial.
Previously he did make an outright denial. Perhaps now he is being a bit cautious, after realising that Najib’s lackey, Abdul Rahman Dahlan, had stupidly (in his and Najib’s view) revealed that there was indeed a charge sheet.The questions of cover-up or not is your perception. I have been trained as a judge according to the law,.Apandi stressed.“Don’t try to insinuate anything against me. I give a warning to everybody. All right?... Be careful. I will be watching," he warned”.If you look at exactly what he said, Apandi did not make a vehement denial regarding the existence of the charge. He just said that the question of the cover-up of the charge sheet was the perception of the Malaysiakini journalist who asked the question and that no insinuations should be made against him.
Law enacted by Parliament, including constitutional amendments, is basic structure of constitution and nobody can agitate against this position. Having agreed to, the executive should be and thankfully seems prepared to accept an adverse decision; it’s like if you agreed to play the match, you must be prepared to accept defeat.
The decision has been variously described as tyranny of the unelected, the scuttling of the will of the people and the elected legislature, continuation of an opaque system of the collegium and an example of judicial and executive mistrust.
the attorney-general should not combine the roles of adviser to the government and public prosecutor.There is a fundamental conflict of interest in the functions and powers of the AG, which enables him to take action against national It is poor governance that the AG is the legal adviser for the government of Malaysia and also the final arbiter on decisions to prosecute,”
We have a living breathing Constitution and a functional democracy. A Parliament enacted an amendment with a large majority, which had the right to do so, in all its collective wisdom. Our Parliament, on the other hand, is a lame duck legislature which should be abolished to save taxpayers money. Our public officials like the Attorney-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Chief Commissioner, and the Governor of Malaysia’s central bank are not able to enforce the law since they report to the Prime Minister, and serve at his pleasure. The Judiciary which is supposed to be our last bastion of justice is subservient to the powerful Executive Branch (and for that we must be eternally grateful to our most outstanding Prime Minister No. 4). We are saddled with institutions that are decrepit and dysfunctional.Our democracy is an abject failure and our confidence and trust in our government is at its lowest point in our 58 year history
This point invites some introspection from the executive. Why the state is is biggest litigant? Is there a dichotomy between governance and public welfare? Are we moving away from a welfare state to bureaucratic state? Why is the state fighting its own citizens with the taxpayers money? Are most of government decisions having a bureaucratic stamp arbitrary, irrational and a result of bureaucratic arrogance? This issue needs serious consideration.There can be an argument that while deciding this subjectivity may creep in, but this is part of life as no human decision can be purely objective. This militates against basic premises of Parliamentary democracy. has the danger of a possible elected autocracy and legislative anarchy, and history is replete with such examples all over the world.