Attorney-Generals work in mysterious ways, depending on who is PM
Laws in this country change complexion when high powered politicians are allegedly involved. Somehow, we have the knack of finding the right kind of AG to suit the needs of the reigning prime minister.
(Focus Malaysia) – ON Dec 8, the Court of Appeal will give its verdict on the charges against former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in regards to the SRC International case. Some of my friends asked me if the court would uphold High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali’s decision or will it get reversed.
Justice Nazlan wrote a 500-page judgement, probably the longest judgment ever written in the history of the country (proud to say Nazlan was a fine lawyer but too quiet to my liking; he was with me some years ago.) Will Dec 8 be a propitious day for Malaysia?
I told my inquisitive friends it is hard to tell how the law operates in Malaysia when it involves influential political personalities.
On 1Malaysia Development Board (1MDB) and SRC, the then-Attorney General Tan Sri Apandi Ali was convinced of Najib’s innocence, exonerated him altogether, and preferred no charges. His successor Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, however, did the opposite and slapped multiple charges against the former premier.
The Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) found nothing wrong with the dealings by 1MDB in 2016 but changed its tune when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister.
When Tommy Thomas was the AG, he decided to drop all charges against former finance minister Lim Guan Eng in connection with the undersea tunnel project in Penang. Soon after the change in Government and another AG took over, Lim was again charged for those cases.
Laws in this country change complexion when high powered politicians are allegedly involved. Somehow, we have the knack of finding the right kind of AG to suit the needs of the reigning prime minister.
Its surreal that we are able to find such compatibility in the relationship between the two powerful personalities in the country without much difficulty.
Just look at former federal territories minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor’s corruption case. The Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, found him not guilty of receiving bribes, although the money went straight to his account.
The giver of the “bribe” never had a history of making any political donation and had never been involved in any political activities, nor was he a champion of social causes to suggest his inclination to make political donations.
So why would a businessman give political donations running into millions when he has never made such a donation before? Yet the majority – except the dissenting one, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais (my former lawyer, I am proud to declare) – decided otherwise.
The majority did not think it was a bribe because “the giver” (a business friend of Tengku Adnan) said it was not a bribe.
One would think that Tengku Adnan’s case had established a precedent where the giver of a bribe now can declare it was a donation and our courts will accept his word. That is all it takes for a complete defence to a prosecution for bribery and corruption under the Penal Code.
And why was Tengku Adnan charged under a Penal Code offence which carries only a two-year jail term and not under the MACC Act which carries 20 years imprisonment is another strange thing in this case.
Read more here
