Thursday, February 4, 2016

AG must be arrested for harbouring a criminal Najib

 this exclusive article 

Mohamad Ramli Manan former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director opines that attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali, who is also the public prosecutor, can be investigated under Section 212 of the Penal Code, which relates to the crime of harbouring an offender

 The scope of the Attorney-General’s powers in these institutions, there is still the question of integrity of the key office-  of police and director general of ACA. It is often said that one may have the best laws in the world, but if we have crooks to implement them, the good laws may come to nothing attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali the predator, not protector do not seem to comply with internationally accepted standards for managing conflict of interest in cases

We just don’t seem to get it. The normal standards of accountability don’t apply to a,g We are unable to grasp their argument that, much as it is desirable in other institutions, transparency in the judiciary will compromise its independence, a larger constitutional value. Hence, we persist with the folly of expecting A.G chamber to be swept away by the wave of transparency triggered Justice is blind because it needs to be;a form of bastardised justice.
Corruption is a way of life in Maklaysia and AG chambers part of it  are den of corruption. But they are kept above board for unknown reasons. They should be accountable for what they do. Right now rules at various levels protect them undeservedly.
AG also normal human beings picked up from the same society which has both honest and dishonest persons. If judges’ chairs would have been crafted from wood of some special tree which could convert even dishonest ones into honest ones, then instead of spending on implementation of ‘Right-To-Information Act’, stress should have been plantation of such trees giving wood having special effect to induce honesty!
Only victims created by an unaccountable judicial system can realise burnt of injustice showered on them by some wrong elements having found entry in our otherwise honest judicial system. Presently such judicial victims can only pray to almighty God rather than any human body (may it be even the highest authority in governance or judicial system of India) for punishing those who deliberately misuse super powers by Constitution.
These self-assessed human-gods are further shielded with a perfect immunised cover with divine-like powers of contempt and defamation but at times misused like devil-power.‘official’ dent to expose corruption and misconduct in Malaysian judicial system.

investigations can also be carried out under Sections 217 or 218 of the Penal Code, related to a public servant disobeying a direction of law with the intent to save a person from punishment or property forfeiture
(A-G) Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision not to frame charges against Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing over alleged financial scandals has little impact over the prime minister's defamation suit against former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik, lawyers said.
"The non-prosecution by the public prosecutor does not disprove what Ling is going to prove in the suit. The civil case is a different ball game altogether," he told The Malaysian Insider.
Ang said Ling needed only show a substantial proof that money was deposited into the private bank accounts of the prime minister.
The lawyer said this in response to whether Ling's defence had become weak after Apandi told a news conference last month that he was not framing charges against Najib due to "insufficient evidence".
This was in relation to the RM2.6 billion donation and another RM42 million from the Finance Ministry-owned SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former subsidiary of troubled 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) in his private accounts.
Lawyer Ravi Nekko said the standard of prove in civil cases was lower compared to criminal cases.
It was on the balance of probability in civil cases while beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution, he said.
"Ling has a much lower burden to adduce evidence to get the suit thrown out."
He also did not rule out the possibility of Ling being awarded damages for the counter claim filed against Najib.
Lawyer S.N Nair said Ling would have been in a position of advantage if a criminal court had found Najib guilty of an offence.
"Such findings could have greatly assisted him but not in the present scenario. He has to adduce evidence to get the suit dismissed."
October last year Najib filed the suit against Ling for claiming that he was unfit to lead Malaysia following the revelation last July that money was deposited into his private bank accounts.
Najib said the RM2.6 billion contribution by a donor from the Middle East was a personal donation and Ling could not use it as a defence.
The Umno president said there was no issue of him violating the party constitution and its financial statements for 2013 and 2014, as the money was a personal donation.
Najib had repeatedly said the money was held in trust for Umno.
He had admitted receiving RM42 million but denied the money came from SRC International.
Najib said he had no knowledge that the money was channelled through two intermediaries – Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd – and it was for Ling to prove.

Justice may be delayed, but it can never be denied

will stink for ten thousand years
Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one – a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country.The general logic doesn’t apply to AG. When others take refuge in opacity, we are justified in suspecting that they are hiding corruption. But when AG chanbers wrap themselves in a veil of secrecy, we have to take it that they are actually doing so for our good, so that they are not distracted by allegations of corruption against themselves.One way of coming to terms with this distinction is to re-adopt the outdated notion that king could do no wrong. Going by his logic,  does seem to suggest some such blanket immunity to  attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali 

. If  attorney-general  has made a false declaration of them, it should be no cause for concern to us, the consumers of justice. It’s time we realised that  attorney-generalhave  has inscrutable reasons. We should just be grateful to them for whatever justice they dispense to us, in their magnanimity and in their good time. Don’t bring the notions of accountability and transparency into this one-of-a-kind relationship.

No comments:

Post a Comment