When the former PM and former AG conspired to commit crimes

By MT Webmaster Last updated Feb 20, 2016

So there you have it. In January 1990, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, conspired to commit a crime by not only closing the file on an ongoing investigation and stamping it NFA (No Further action) but they also destroyed the evidence so that in future no one can ever try to reopen the case.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Last week, former Attorney General (AG) Abu Talib Othman attacked the current AG, Mohamed Apandi Ali, for clearing Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak of any wrongdoings regarding 1MDB.

“If he (Apandi) was ‘just following his master’s footsteps’ then he would not have been in the confused state of mind when he made his decision and ordered the MACC to close an on-going investigation.”

“In the current circumstances, his decision had raised more questions on allegations against the PM and the state of investigations relating to activities of 1MDB and persons connected with the company,” Abu Talib said.

Abu Talib appears to have forgotten what he did in 1990, which sent the late Karpal Singh into an outrage. In fact, the whole nation almost went berserk and this was what Aliran reported in January 1990:

The newspapers have been selling like hot cakes lately. Everyone wants to know the latest on the pornographic videotapes scandal.

The affair has really captured the nation’s imagination. Actually, if one looks closely, there are two scandals – the Vijandran scandal and the Abu Talib scandal. The first one was of course ignited by the allegation that Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker D.P. Vijandran had been featured in several pornographic videotapes. Barely a month later, while the dirt and dust was still swirling over the claim, the Attorney General created yet another scandal with his explanation of why investigation into the video tapes affair was closed.

As such, there are now two vital questions begging answer. First, should Mr. Vijandran be disqualified as a Member of Parliament? (He seems to have defied public opinion – several Cabinet members were reported to be of similar opinion – to resign as deputy speaker by merely taking long leave).

Second, what is to be done about the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman? His statement that he had ordered the police to destroy 11 video tapes and four envelopes containing photographs and negatives belonging to Mr. Vijandran – and with Mr. Vijandran’s consent – caused an outraged uproar and led several groups and individuals to publicly accuse the government of a cover-up.

The AG’s handling of the case has brought odium and contempt to the high office that he occupies and he should resign immediately. Aliran views his action as blatant attempt to destroy evidence and to subvert the course of justice. Even more deplorable is that this is not the first time that the AG has been implicated up to the eyeballs in covering up scandals and in protecting those responsible for abuse of power. The public has not forgotten his part in covering up the BMF scandal and his Machiavellian role in the events leading to the dismissal of the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas.

The Prime Minister’s response to the affair is greatly disappointing. It is not enough for Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to say that the AG used his discretion in advising police to destroy the videotapes and photographs. The PM should order an investigation into the conduct of the AG for a number of reasons.

For almost a month since the sex scandal hit the headlines, the public was led to believe – on the basis of statements by the Deputy Home Minister and high ranking police officials – that investigations into the case were still on. Little did the public know that videotapes and photographs had already been destroyed on the instruction of the AG way back in January 1989. Were some people in authority lying? Was there a deliberate attempt to deceive the people? Or was it a genuine mistake on the part of the police? Or was it a problem of miscommunication between AG and the public?

The public has a right to answers to all these questions. As it is, many people are indignant and shocked over the way the scandal has been handled and they are convinced that the destruction of the videotapes is part of a massive cover-up. They very rightly feel the authorities are trying to bluff their way out.

There is another reason why the PM should act immediately. It has been argued in legal circles that the AG overstepped the bounds of his authority when he ordered the evidence destroyed. If he has indeed abused his powers, then the PM should order an investigation into the scandal. Did the AG have certain reasons, best known to him, in ordering the destruction of the tapes and photographs? Did he do so to protect certain individuals?

The AG also claimed that he could not prosecute the men caught with the stolen tapes and photographs because there was insufficient evidence that they were the ones who stole them. However, he could not explain why the men were not charged with possession of stolen property.

There is also no question that the videotapes and photographs belonged to Mr. Vijandran and were part of the contents of the safe, which the burglars stole from the MIC leader’s bedroom. Why then was no action taken against Mr. Vijandran for lodging a false police report as he had initially reported to the police that the safe contained important MIC documents?

This gives rise to another set of questions. Neither the PM or the AG nor any public official has denied the allegation that the videotapes were pornographic in contents. As such, it seems as though the AG has failed in his duty by not prosecuting the owner of the videotapes. Shouldn’t action be taken against the AG for failing to carry out his duties? Isn’t it all the more important for the PM to act in this instance since the allegation of the pornographic tapes involves a public figure? The PM has a responsibility to institute an investigation into the conduct of the AG.

It is not enough for the PM to sidetrack the issue by saying that the AG used his discretion. For after all, what is discretion? The Oxford Dictionary defines discretion as the “liberty of suiting one’s action to circumstances” or an “excuse for cowardice”. For the man-in-the-street, there is little doubt which definition best suits the AG’s handling of this terrible scandal.

So can all these people now just shut up and not scream so much about what should or should not be done regarding the 1MDB case before we remind Malaysians about what they did when they were in power.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK