In an ideal world, Putrajaya’s word would be law.
It could, if it wished, feel that all is well. It decided that today by deciding to throw out allegations of evidence fabrication in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s 1998 “black-eye incident”.
In its highly-anticipated explanation to Parliament today, the government clearly side-stepped the damning accusations made by former investigating officer Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim that Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had falsified documents in the case, brushing aside the former’s two recent open letters.
Instead, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz told the House today that there was no need for Mat Zain to complain that the independent panel formed to investigate the evidence fabrication had failed to clear his name in the incident.
This, said Nazri, was because Mat Zain had never been the subject of the panel’s probe and had merely been called forth as a witness to testify. The minister also said that the panel had been constitutional, despite Mat Zain’s claim that the Solicitor-General had no right to appoint the members as that prerogative only lay with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, based on the prime minister’s advice.
The Barisan Nasional (BN) government is obviously playing with the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
At one time, it could have gotten away with it. But not anymore.
These are the days of whistleblowers and WikiLeaks. Where documents and evidence presented by the likes of Mat Zain will surface. And vehement denials and assertions on points of law will not matter.
Simply because the people won’t believe it.
The perception is that there is a cover-up. That there are dishonest officials prowling in Putrajaya.
For them, the government must come clean on this. Questions have been raised by none other than the police officer investigating the ‘black-eye’.
He is asking tough questions and making some serious allegations. Among other allegations, Mat Zain has accused the A-G of being guilty of falsifying the medical reports in the incident through “careful planning, preparation and a deliberate intention to fulfil clear motives”.
Mat Zain also said that the royal commission of inquiry’s investigation report on the issue in 1999 had not included all three medical report, which totalled 65 pages.
Do we need WikiLeaks to find us these documents?
Does the country actually need another ‘black-eye’, just like what happened when Anwar was assaulted in September 1998? The former deputy prime minister might have lost the bruise of that horrid assault but Malaysia has yet to recover from it, by the looks of today’s decision.
And it won’t. Not until BN puts to rest all allegations, speculations and questions about the ‘black-eye’ incident.
#1 by pulau_sibu on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 10:37 am
why the politicians are so much concerned about what was mentioned about them in Wikileaks? There will be more to come, for sure. I look forward to seeing the more exciting ones
#2 by HJ Angus on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 11:03 am
If Malaysian voters still are not convinced to change the Bankrupsi Negara regime after 30+ years of oppression and piratisation, then maybe we truly deserve to get this quality of government.
Wikileaks may be good for the whole world as it shows all nations only care for self-interest.
#3 by undertaker888 on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 11:27 am
it’s a black eye in everything that umno does.
the latest one–no one can own putrajaya except umno.
fine. when they lose the election, they will all be confined in putrajaya. make it into a maximum security jail.
#4 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 1:43 pm
“According to Mat Zain, the solicitor-general does not have the powers to appoint the deputy public prosecutors who form the (independent) panel. However, if we look at section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), only one legal position is clear, that the solicitor-general has the power to appoint the DPP” .
This is the argument of our Honourable Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz of why the independent panel earlier set up to examine the findings of ACA relating to AG & IGP was properly/legally constituted, and not illegally constituted as alleged by Mat Zain.
I think Mat Zain is right in law.
Sections 376(1) and (2) of CPC (cited by Nazri) merely provides our solicitor-general (SG) the powers of and to stand in as the AG or his DPPs on all matters relating to the “control/directions of all criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code” ie CPC.
Here the SG had appointed 3 retired judges to the independent committee to hear and later exonerate AG&IGP.
But the crucial point is this: the independent panel was not strictly a court of law and the proceedings before the independent panel were strictly NOT a criminal prosecution and proceeding under purview of the CPC in relation to AG or IGP for the SG to appoint such a panel.
A panel to determine the probity or lache of AG at least must under the Federal Constitution be appointed by the King on advice of PM (like the way TDM did to Salleh Abas!) and not SG.
Mat Zain had also never alleged those sitting on the panels were “deputy public prosecutors” as ascribed to him by Nazri.
They were ex judges. They might well have been DPPs one time or another earlier on back in their career but that is irrelevant in respect of the issue of constitutionality of the panel raised by Mat Zain.
In times like this, it is incumbent for The Bar Council as stakeholder for public interest on matters of law should come out and state the correct legal and constitutional position – on who’s correct the ex CID chief Mat or ex Lawyer Nazri.
Nazri also argued that there was no need for Mat Zain to complain that the independent panel formed to investigate the evidence fabrication had failed to clear his name in the incident – because Mat Zain had never been the subject of the panel’s probe and had merely been called forth as a witness to testify.
This is not arguing with breath of the entire picture. Mat Zain was not just raising this issue to clear his name only!
He was raising this issue for review to clear the name of the Police and the AG office which are institutions of the state, the credibility and maintenance of which all rakyat including the honorable minister have an interest and stake in clearing!
#5 by k1980 on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 - 3:33 pm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,734422,00.html
Saifool needes to be tested by this erotic lie detector to test whether he is falsely claiming to be gay. Then only can the whole truth be known
#6 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 16 December 2010 - 1:41 am
Zimbabwe. Mugabe.
#7 by monsterball on Friday, 17 December 2010 - 1:15 pm
I think thousand received black eyes and broken legs as part of our police system to treat so call naughty Malaysians…and in extreme cases…you may find satisfying some crooked police officers with sex favors or huge bribes can only make life easy for some jail birds…arranged by outsiders or relatives.,.and in jail..drug are also available.
If you have the money…all problems solved.
But Mahathir is the only PM that put a crony in jail for show and somehow that jail bird can go home freely..too.
That’s the famous Abdullah Ang..and you can bet..he was doing favors for Mahathir.