I said two days ago that Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali must be prepared to face the sack if he continues to stall from resigning honourably and with dignity as Attorney-General.
Is Apandi Ali going to create dubious history by denying Malaysia with an Attorney-General for more than a moth in a most crucial period in the nation’s history?
Today marks the full three weeks since the watershed day on May 9 when Malaysians surprised the world that they are capable of national self-correction and self-renewal by effecting a peaceful and democratic transition of power, placing Malaysia firmly on the path of a normal democracy.
It was not only a vote for no confidence for the Prime Minister and the UMNO/BN government, but more specifically, against the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali because of the AG’s central and extraordinary role in one of the primary issues of the 14th General Election – the 1MDB interntional money-laundering scandal resulting in Malaysia being stained worldwide as a global kleptocracy.
I fully agree with the Amanah MP for Sepang, Hanipa Maidin, that the power accorded to the attorney-general to determine not to initiate criminal proceedings cannot protect the latter if he is found to have abused that discretion in order to protect criminals.
Hanipa Maidin is only stating a truism when he said that while the discretion to decide on criminal charges was accorded to attorney-generals in the constitution, there was no such thing as “absolute discretion”, especially if discretion was misused.
However, the question whether Apandi Ali is liable to criminal prosecution for misusing his discretionary powers as Attorney-General should not under any circumstances or in any way be linked with the issue of his resignation as Attorney-General when there is a change of Government in a general election, especially when it is clear that the Attorney-General has been given a thumping vote of no confidence by the electorate and that he enjoys zero confidence by the new government.
Any other interpreation or action by exploiting any constitutional loophole or nicety to create a constitutional stalemate would tantamout to holding the new govenrment and the national electorate to hostage to nullify the verdict of the national electorate, making nonsense of the concept of constitutional government in a parliamentary democracy.
(Media Statement in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday, 30th May 2018)
#1 by gofortruth on Thursday, 31 May 2018 - 3:17 am
Truth be told he was placed there as AG as an accomplice to THE theft, no more no less.
#2 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 31 May 2018 - 5:55 am
YB, typo in 2nd para – should be “month” not “moth”. By not resigning –when new govt has no confidence in him-AG Apandi has created a problem not only for govt but the rakyat. Whilst not resigning-which is one thing – he is, at same time, also not doing his job (another thing). For eg: The AG is chairman of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (“LPQB”). There are law students appealing to LPQB not to be deny them from sitting the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) exam this coming July. Some of them have merits in their appeal. However LPQB will not sit to consider their merits if its chairman the AG does not convene and attend the LPQB meeting. The career of these students is hanging on the balance. Those who have merits of the appeal will not make it for this coming July exam. This is just one example how rakyat also suffer by this stalemate created by the limbo of his position: he neither resigns as AG nor works as AG!
#3 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 31 May 2018 - 6:07 am
You said “he must be prepared to face the sack if he continues”. Of course he is prepared: otherwise why would he over stay a month? He wants to take on the govt on grounds of unconstitutional sacking. On allegations that he abused prosecutorial power he says prove it – for a man is presumed innocent unless proven guilty by Court of law. Its not Govt opinion; certainly not court of public opinion. Pakatan Harapan upholds Rule of Law doesn’t it?
#4 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 31 May 2018 - 6:16 am
You say he plays on “constitutional loophole or nicety to create a constitutional stalemate”. Of course he would do that-and (from his angle) why not? Constitutionally his appointment is by YDPA on advice of PM but does it mean his sacking is also by YDPA on advice of PM? Apparently the AG shall not be removed except on like grounds and manner as a judge of the Federal Court – just like removal Lord President Suffian in judicial crisis of 1988 as determined by 5 senior judges of Common wealth. Basically he is saying to 2nd time PM why can’t he be entitled same treatment of Federal Judge Suffian during time he was 1st time PM? How you answer that?
#5 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 31 May 2018 - 6:29 am
Maybe you consider this question. He was appointed as AG in replacement of Tan Sri Gani Patail. Ex AG Gani was also sacked summarily on then PM’s advice. The basis of his sacking was not even mentioned much less deliberated by 5 distinguished judges of same rank. If Apandi’s constitutional point were correct, then the removal/sacking of his predecessor Gani Patail whom he replaced was unconstitutional. That being so Gani;s sacking was void and if so Gani is and should still be the AG. Does this render Apandi’s appointment in replacement of him as AG equally invalid? Otherwise there will be 2 AGs???