From what you insinuate, not only the judicial institution but also the entire administration of justice system must be called to scrutiny. Good you raise the issue.

Although AG department has discretion to prosecute, it cannot generally having regard to equal protection constitutional safeguard under article 8, exercise prosecutorial discretion on improper grounds dictated by race or religion or even political creed or considerations. [Article 8 of Federal constitution – All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law].

Arguably, the Constitution prohibits the government from pursuing criminal charges even though the accused (Zunaidah Mohd Idris) may have actually committed an offence of falsifying a document written by magistrate Nurul Mardhiah Redza in relation to a drug case in the magistrate’s court.

Here there must be evidence of improper motives – not just suspicions of improper motives…..

2nd last para of last post should read “….Arguably, where there is evidence of improper motives, the Constitution prohibits….”

The suspicions are based on:

1. Zunaidah of Klang Session Court ordered the discharge of Hindraf’s leaders P. Uthayakumar, his brother P. Waytha Moothy and V. Ganabatirau on technicalities that the prosecution had failed to submit the original Tamil transcript of the alleged seditious remarks allegedly made by them; (It was not a decision the powers-that-be were happy about);

2. AG immediately asked for the notes of proceedings leading to judge Zunaidah Mohd Idris discharging the trio but that might be explained by prosecution’s application to reverse Zunaidah’s decision before the High Court;

3. prosecution division head of the Attorney-General’s Chambers conducting prosecution of Zunaidah raising “eyebrows why the head of the Attorney-General’s Chambers is conducting the prosecution of this comparatively minor case when neither he nor the Attorney-General is conducting the prosecution in the high-profile Mongolian Altantunya Shariibuu murder trial with its far reaching political and good governance implications”;

4. After her decision, “Zunaidah was taken off the Klang Sessions Court and transferred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers in Putrajaya and assigned to administrative duties”.

Look at 4. That is the lynchpin of the whole issue.

Zunaidah was government employee (not easily sacked under general Orders) but what if she were working in private sector, would her transfer from sessions court judge to administrative duties in Putrajaya be normally considered a punishment tantamount to “constructive dismissal”???

In a constructive dismissal, in broad terms ,one of the main test is:-

Whether the transfer to administrative duties in Putrajaya is “cold storage” being so fundamental change that would in parallel circumstances in private sector constitute a breach of contract on the part of her government employer which breach is sufficiently important to justify Zunaida as employee to have immediately resigned from employ of her employer without having to pay it compensation and instead be entitled to claim from compensation from the employer on grounds of constructive dismissal without lawful justification?

If looking at and operating within the 4 corners of her written contract with govt employer, the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, then she would have established objectively some reasonable basis that her employer, the government had commited “constructive dismissal” and acted in bad faith in that particular transfer to administrative duties – and since the AG/Prosecution Department is also under the same govt employer, a reasonable suspicion of improper motives (ie as in being likely directed to prosecute as part of the overall attitude of the govt employer to punish this “errant” employee….

As I earlier said, generally once some reasonable suspicion is established that exercise of prosecution discretion might have been tainted by some extraneous and improper motives, it cannot be allowed to proceed – independent, separate and regardless of the question whether Zunaidah had actually falsified a document written by magistrate Nurul Mardhiah Redza in relation to a drug case in the magistrate’s court as accused or otherwise!

Cinapek, sessions court judges like magistrates below them are all members of Judicial and Legal Service, the head of which is the Attorney General. In his other role, the Attorney General is empowered under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue at his discretion based on evidence investigated and presented by police/ACA any criminal prosecution against any persons including the Prime Minister. It is a very powerful position.