The memoirs of a former attorney-general (AG) have generated much interest on multiple fronts, more so during this period of intense politicking and campaigning.
A political party spokesperson summed it up well when he stated that the former AG was not part of any political party and that he was capable of defending himself; without unrelated parties having to jump to his “rescue” by offering seemingly altruistic viewpoints.
The constitution affords the AG rather unlimited powers on whether to prosecute or not and it is quite a challenge to challenge such enshrined powers. In our system, the AG is also the public prosecutor – hence calls for these two functions to be separated as he also represents the government.
Our parliamentarians have failed to have these functions separated, as called for by many quarters, to maintain the integrity of the post. Could this lethargy stem from vested political interests?
The report by the task force has been questioned – firstly, on the impartiality of the task force itself and also following the admission that it should be used as political ammunition.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was responsible in appointing the said AG, had been clear in his comments, inter alia, that he chose him as he was known to be “impartial” and followed the “rule of law”.
Mahathir has gone on to say that “If I had to do it all over again, I would appoint a person who is not biased”. Such a statement is indeed damning. The proof is in the pudding.
It appears the Bar Council has taken on the mantle suggesting that proper due process would have required an independent investigation under a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) as opposed to a special task force.
This is possibly based on the premise that since the special task force is established by the executive, the issue of partiality and whether it can be truly independent has to be a concern.
This preoccupation with due process and the natural laws of justice appears to have taken a back seat in the inner workings of the Bar Council itself when attending to disciplinary issues within its fraternity.
A recent Federal Court judgement has ruled that the Bar Council “breached” its statutory duty when it decided to allow discussions on one of its fellow brethren. The Federal Court noted that this (action) was “not only illegal but grossly unfair and highly prejudicial to the appellant”.
To provide context, the parties in this episode involved an appellant, Shafee Abdullah, suing the Bar Council and two others – Tommy Thomas and another person.
The motion submitted for discussion at the Bar annual general meeting related to Shafee’s conduct as a deputy public prosecutor in a sodomy appeal and his participation in roadshows with the purpose of insulting a convicted prisoner and bringing attention to his role in the conviction.
Apparently this is a breach of the profession’s rules.
Curiously the case centred on the appellant’s participation at a political event. Is there more than what meets the eye here on possible political leanings by certain parties?
Such mishandling of a rather simple case speaks volumes when it comes to the Bar Council questioning the impartiality of the special task force constituted by the executive, especially in the light of it having to possibly pay damages consequent to its mishandling of the said case.
The layman is perplexed as to the motive behind statements questioning the said task force. At its crux, it has yet to be proven that the contents of the report are biased or otherwise.
In an unrelated development, the appellant mentioned above has recently been acquitted by the High Court on a money laundering charge without his defence being called, a reflection of the robustness, or lack thereof, of the prosecution’s case under the leadership of the then AG.
A fellow lawyer has called on the next government to amend laws governing the profession to prevent lawyers from using the Bar Council to engage in “political activity”. Why should this be so?
Surprisingly we now read that the Bar Council is being sued again in a somewhat similar vein as the earlier Federal Court case. Why should this be so? Are all members of the Bar on the same page?
The old adage “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” rings true.
Leave the dirty game of politics to the politicians. Professional bodies should focus on strengthening the profession as opposed to descending into arenas where they may not be the best fit and end up attracting unwelcome attention, purportedly in championing “justice”.
