Ex-AG says he’s a ‘professional’, zips lips on 1MDB critic’s trial

(Malay Mail Online) – Former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has insisted he will not comment on the court court case against 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) critic Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and his lawyer Matthias Chang, both who have been charged with attempted economic sabotage against the country.

Addressing the issue head on for the first time since his abrupt removal from office three months ago, the former prosecutor said he had to maintain his professionalism and would not speak about ongoing court matters and when he lacked the full facts of a case.

“As a professional, I will not discuss that because it will be a subject matter that has been brought in court and that will have to be settled in court. As to the legality and so on, we will wait for the court’s decision, let’s see what happens,” he said in his presentation at a forum last night.

Abdul Gani was asked several times to comment on the prosecution of Chang, who has said that he was charged for merely acting as a lawyer for Khairuddin in the latter’s visits to authorities abroad to lodge reports on 1MDB.

Abdul Gani again reiterated that he could not say if Chang was charged properly or if there was a case against him, as he does not know the facts apart from him being a lawyer representing Khairuddin and detained under the Special Offences (Security Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012.

“I do not know what the prosecution have, you have to be fair to them, that has not been disclosed as yet. We have to look at the trial, if at the trial, there was no evidence, then that is bad prosecution.

“But if they have something else to prove, yes, a lawyer is not exempt, even the Attorney-General is not exempt, even an ex-Attorney-General is not exempt from the law, that’s what it is,” the recently retired government lawyer said.

During his presentation, Abdul Gani raised several points for the audience to consider, including the common objections that SOSMA was intended for suspected terrorists and how the act of lodging reports on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds could amount to “sabotage” when such reports are meant to initiate probes.

He also raised the status of protections to whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010, further pointing out that foreign authorities only have power to conduct investigations on offences in their own countries.

“Another point of contention is how any foreign investigation initiated pursuant to these disclosures will affect Malaysia’s banking and financial services when no foreign law enforcement agencies has jurisdiction to investigate an offence in Malaysia.

“If any foreign law enforcement agencies were to initiate their own domestic investigation, it would necessarily be in relation to breaches of their own respective laws and misuse or undermining of their own banking and financial services. That is their business, as far as I am concerned,” he said, leaving it to the audience to consider these points.

On October 12, Khairuddin and Chang were charged with attempting to sabotage the country’s banking and financial services through visits to authorities in five locations, namely France, UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong Singapore, with the offence under Section 124L of the Penal Code read together with Section 34 of the same law carrying a penalty of a maximum 15-year jail term.

Khairuddin and Chang were detained on September 23 and October 8 under SOSMA, which allows detention without trial for 28 days, and have remained in detention since then.

During the question and answer session, Abdul Gani said he had always prided himself in neither being a politician or diplomat and would call a spade a spade, clarifying that he did not say there were abuses in the use of SOSMA.

“Remember what I said, until I know the facts and details, only then will I comment. That has been my job all this while.

“To prove abuse, you all know it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. As a professional, no matter whether you are a lawyer or in the prosecution, you hold by that principle alone, otherwise you are of no use,” he said.

When asked if bringing a charge against a prime minister amounts to activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy — an offence under the Penal Code — and if SOSMA applies to such a situation, Abdul Gani said the 2012 law applies to offences against the state.

“You have to read Chapter VI and Chapter VI A carefully. If you look at the part, it’s only against the state, not individual, so we can see what it’s for,” he said referring to the two categories of offences under the Penal Code that SOSMA is applicable to.

The Bar Council forum “SOSMA: Wolf in sheep’s clothing” last night is Abdul Gani’s first public appearance since his retirement and since his services as Attorney-General was discontinued on July 27 due to health reasons.