Cabinet to query A-G over ‘black-eye’ case

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
The Malaysian Insider
November 24, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 24 — The Najib administration has instructed two Cabinet ministers to question Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail over his alleged involvement in the infamous 1998 “black-eye incident” involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the Cabinet’s decision came after former police officer Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim claimed to have new information on the 12-year-old case that implicated Abdul Gani, the current Attorney-General.

“I’ve now been instructed (as a result of the Cabinet meeting), Datuk Rais (Minister of Information, Communications and Culture) and myself, to meet and speak to the Attorney-General and we are now waiting for him to come back from Mekah,” Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told The Malaysian Insider today.

Mat Zain, the former Kuala Lumpur CID chief, had, in an open letter on Monday to Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar, called for a full closure of the alleged police assault on Anwar, volunteering information that could “restore” police image and credibility.

Nazri said Cabinet wanted to hear what Abdul Gani had to say before taking action.

“We want to hear from the Attorney-General (regarding the contents of the open letter),” he said.

“This is a serious matter. If he (Mat Zain) is telling the truth, we would have to go into the details… but until then, there is no decision yet.”

In a statement yesterday, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang said he had met Nazri on the matter.

Nazri, who is minister in charge of Parliament, had told Parliament two weeks ago that he would refer the claims against the A-G to the Cabinet as soon as possible after the Dewan Rakyat rejected Lim’s motion to deduct RM10 from Abdul Gani’s salary for “failure to discharge his duties”.

“I said to him (Lim) that I would bring this matter up to the Cabinet two Fridays ago, which I did, with the support of Datuk Seri Utama Rais Yatim,” Nazri (left) said.

Mat Zain, the policeman who investigated the assault on Anwar, claimed that an independent panel that cleared Abdul Gani and former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan of fabricating evidence in the incident was unconstitutional.

In his statement, Mat Zain accused the country’s top lawyer of deceiving Cabinet over the independent panel.

He said there was no need for any royal commission of inquiry on the matter as the police were capable of resolving the case themselves.

Mat Zain also revealed that there had been an agreement between former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor, former Deputy IGP Tan Sri Norian Mai as well as Mat Zain on October 8, 1998, at 2.30pm that there would be “complete closure” to the black-eye case.

“It is important that I note that Rahim Noor was ready to take full responsibility in the black-eye incident, and his decision was made of his own accord,” said Mat Zain. “The closure of the case had been agreed to be done professionally, above board.”

Mat Zain said that Rahim was prepared to step down after the closure of the black-eye incident.

“But I found out that about 5-5.30pm on the same day, Allahyarham (the late) Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, along with the then Datuk Abdul Gani Patail (now Tan Sri), had met with Rahim Noor at his office. At 6pm, I was then told by Tan Sri Norian to ‘continue investigations like normal’.

“I then understood that the agreement that we had reached mere hours ago had been cancelled. I was shocked and upset, but who was I to say anything at the time,” said Mat Zain.

The former policeman also accused Abdul Gani of falsifying testimonies relating to the black-eye incident.

He said the longer the case remained unresolved, the longer innocent officers would be accused of being involved in a cover-up of the case.

In July 2008, Anwar filed a police report accusing Abdul Gani, Mat Zain, Musa (then a senior investigation officer in 1998) and Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof of falsifying a medical report on his black-eye case.

Rahim, the IGP in 1998, had admitted he assaulted Anwar following a royal commission of inquiry probe in 1999.

  1. #1 by Loh on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 2:11 pm

    Article 145 The Attorney General

    (5) Subject to clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong….

    (6) The person holding the office of the Attorney General…. shall not be removed from office except on the like ground and in the like manner as a judge of the Supreme Court.

    Article 125 Tenure of office and remuneration of judges of Supreme Court

    (2) A judge of the supreme court … shall not be removed from office except in accordance with the following provisions of this Article

    It would appear that the Attorney General can only be removed if he is convicted by a tribunal convened in accordance to Clause (4) of Article 125.

    Curiously why are the two ministers tasked to talk to TSGP? Was it to ask TSGP to resign or else face the court? Or was it to justify that TSGP has no case to answer?

  2. #2 by pwcheng on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 2:16 pm

    This all happened during Mahathir’s era. The cabinet must probe whether there are instructions from higher up. However if precedents are something we can depend on, these two stooges are capable of staging their own act.

  3. #3 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 3:18 pm

    Chain of command – and also blame: ex CID chief Mat Zain had to listen to then IGP Norian Mai, the IGP to listen to AG Chambers, well TSGP could say had to take instructions from then AG Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah (TSMA) and TSMA had to take instructions from whom, the First Cause?

  4. #4 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 3:22 pm

    TSMA is not around anymore to refute or confirm. The buck may stop there. Sigh of relief all round.

  5. #5 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 4:01 pm

    As the incumbent AG, GA’s word is law.

    Who are the two Ministers to contradict him or disprove him?

    Looks like another NFA case here. Maybe Rais may even have to kiss his hands too in obedience with Najib behind him, GA.

    And you will know that many are beholden to GA, so he is safe and will probably get away scot-free.

    Its all sandiwara and they are just going about the motions for another ‘no case’ decision. Its normal.

  6. #6 by Loh on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 4:42 pm

    Can a person be absolved of a crime if he acts against the law under instruction? The AG does not have to take instruction from the Prime Minister, according to his job description. An officer cannot lie under instruction because he is aware of the fact. It might be a different matter if one is ordered to destroy physical evidence.

  7. #7 by johnnypok on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 6:36 pm

    TDM must apogise to DSAI and family

  8. #8 by DAP man on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 7:01 pm

    “Curiously why are the two ministers tasked to talk to TSGP? Was it to ask TSGP to resign or else face the court? Or was it to justify that TSGP has no case to answer?”.. Loh

    My answer: NFA.

    Only a fool will believe the government will take actions against the AG. The 2 Ministers will say the AG is absolved of all accusations. Case closed.

    Maybe they will go after Mat Zain!

  9. #9 by ktteokt on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 - 10:09 pm

    Wrong, johnnyopok, TDM must apologize to the whole of the Malaysian population!!!!

  10. #10 by johnnypok on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 1:39 am

    He should be crucified for all his crimes

  11. #11 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 8:46 am

    Cabinet to “query” AG could be much to do with Nazri’s initiatives to bring th matter up to that level (after his talk with YB Kit). It does not necessarily mean the holding of AG to accounting based on what Mat Zain said is supported by rest of cabinet colleagues.

    Ultimately whether anything comes out of it depends on political will of the PM because constitutionally it is he who advises the King to invoke the investigating tribunal mentioned by Loh #1 above.

    Malaysia has never had experience in taking an AG to task if he for any reason of wrong doing refuses to resign. There is also a dearth of such extraordinary precedents anywhere in Commonwealth from which to follow how it’s done (smoothly).

    We have had experience in removing a top Judge though (Tun Salleh Abbas) due to “political will” of TDM. But even in that case it was rumoured that Tun Salleh’s suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir’s pressure to either resign or retire though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah!

    When Tun Salleh was removed the then AG played a significant role in advising procedures how it’s done. This is because the AG is the government’s lead lawyer who advises the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister on all legal matters. Many opine that his is the most powerful office in the land not only in terms of exercising discretionary prosecutorial powers and discretion but totally independent from accounting to even Parliament! Yes no one is above the Law including the AG but who is competent to advise the PM/Cabinet and the King on the Law when it concerns legalities of an AG’s own removal???

    Once though in 1990 Kit asked Cabinet to appoint an “independent Special Prosecutor” to investigate then AG, Tan Sri Abu Talib for allegedly obstructing justice and destroying the eleven Vijandran’s pornographics videotapes and the four envelopes of 2,000 photographs.

    Not surprisingly nothing came out of it. Unlike the American Constitution I am not aware of any provision in our Federal Constitution providing for an “independent Special Prosecutor” like Kenn Starr probing the nature of President Bill Clinton’s ‘pornographic relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and even if (hypothetically) there were such provisions who would that be who is both competent and independent with superb legal credentials – Raja Aziz Addruse? [Surely it cannot be MACC lawyer of self strangulation’s infamy or for that matter any other government lawyer including Solicitor general ranking below the AG – or even Karpal Singh disqualified by partisanship (from political party DAP)].

    Tentatively 2 ministers are tasked to query him because of their legal credentials – both Datuk Nazri & Rais being lawyers by training with the latter holding a PhD in law, it being assumed that they at least understand legal implications involved in Mat Zain’s disclosure and AG’s role if any in it.

  12. #12 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 8:55 am

    Do they have a God to report to? What would God say to them?

    “You do the works of the Devil”? or in this case “You do the works of the Mamak”?

  13. #13 by dagen on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 9:13 am

    Kutty and Patail: The tale of two mamaks.

    “I dont know.”
    “I cant remember.”

  14. #14 by ktteokt on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 10:25 am

    Lim Chong Eu has just been called to rest, when is MAMAK’s turn coming? Will he repent before he kicks the BUCKET?

  15. #15 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 11:44 am

    ///when is MAMAK’s turn coming?///

    Likely a long while more : The Maker is, even after an experience of an eternity, not ready to meet one such as him – yet.

  16. #16 by k1980 on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 11:53 am

    //The Maker is, even after an experience of an eternity, not ready to meet one such as him – yet.//

    There are 2 Makers— one in Paradise and the other in Hades. Which one are you referring to? Surely not the former?

  17. #17 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 1:05 pm

    if heaven is full of these people, i would rather go to hell. and if hell is also full of these people, i rather be in purgatory. i rather have my soul wondering around like pontianak. how do we know, maybe they even influence Goo-Mor-Ong to change the Hell Constitution to include ketuanan and 30%.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 2:01 pm

    ///There are 2 Makers— one in Paradise and the other in Hades. Which one are you referring to? Surely not the former?///

    Not for me to say which Maker but I assume either is not ready, for the man has an earthly record of challenging and destabilising existing authority, and Tunku had given report. Hah ha ha.

  19. #19 by johnnypok on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 4:30 pm

    Mamak is not a human .. he is neither and Indian nor a faked malay … and he will be hanging between heaven and hell.

  20. #20 by Loh on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 5:43 pm

    For a person who said that he had 100 % of one of the two types of blood mixed together, he must have hated the other. Mamakthir claimed he had 100% pure Malay blood though he said to Barry Wain, the author of Malaysian Maverick,that he had two spoonfuls of Pakistani blood. So he would deny the existence of his father and claimed virgin birth if possible. Mamakthir said that he was not a racist; but he utilized race-card to get ahead politically so he must be a racial opportunist. But why did he hate his father so much as to deny the existence of his father’s ancestry. Was it not because his father too was born the wrong race and thus inconvenience to his political career that he hated non-Malays. For that he had himself to blame as Tunku did not promote racial polarisation; it was mamakthir who started ketuanan Melayu, and so he had to masquerade as a Malay. He might be regretting now that UMNO leaders are proud of having mixed blood in their veins. Mamakthir had the opportunity to undo his racial polarization policy and to redeem his Indian ancestry. But the opportunity cost was considered too great by the true opportunist. What an opportunist, and what harms he had created to have the nation divided so that he could be in power. He is the worst Malaysian to date.

  21. #21 by Cinapek on Thursday, 25 November 2010 - 6:52 pm

    Phone call from TSAG to Ministers:

    TSAG: “hello, I understand that you want to talk to me about the ex-cop’s surat layang?”

    Minister :” yeah, sorry lah, Cabinet tekan. That DAP barger bising bising”

    TSAG: ” No problem. BTW, I am bringing along a file to show you…”

    Minister “what file?”

    TSAG : “Nothing much. The one MACC pass to me regarding your involvement with XXXX”. When do we meet?”

    Minister: “oh! That one. Boleh discuss?”

    TSAG: “sure, like the big boss says, “you tolong sama gua, gua tolong sama lu”. “

You must be logged in to post a comment.