One of the phrases I hate to use most is the famous "I told you so". To me, it evokes condescension and is likely to make the recipient more bitter than humbled that the other is wiser. But sometimes it is necessary to say "I told you so" especially when the target of your remark is not merely unwise but an unwitting buffoon who makes the institution he represents look so idiotic that it prompts laughter instead of respect.

From the moment news broke that 31 so-called supporters of Hindraf had been charged with attempted murder of a policeman , I asked: How in God's name are they going to prosecute these people? I said this not because I was a lawyer. Far from it. I work with microchips and circuit boards, not law books and statutes.

But my little understanding of natural justice prompted me to ask: Did the 31 accused pick up one brick together, balanced it on 62 hands and at an agreed moment, flung it with combined force at the policeman with the intention of killing him?

The other question I had was, of course: Did the 31 accused know for sure that when they were going to gather overnight at the Batu Caves temple and that a police officer by the name of Dadi Abdul Rani was going to be part of the police party that was to attack them with tear gas and water cannons?

Did the 31 go there for that intentional encounter with that officer so they could murder him? Unless you answered ‘yes’ to both, I cannot see how you could prove that the 31 had premeditated intentions to kill that officer.

So when news finally emerged that the attempted murder charge against the 31 had been dropped , the first thing I said was "I told you so". But the target of my admonition was not the people I had spoken to about the case. My target was that wonderful, unwitting clown we have in the form of an attorney-general.

Let's look at the factors cited by the AG for dropping the attempted murder charge, as reported by Malaysiakini .

“Approached to comment on why the charges were dropped, Abdul Gani said it was difficult to pinpoint exactly who threw the brick that had injured officer Dadi Abdul Rani.

“‘I could be very strict but this is not the time. This is not a goodwill gesture (to them). This is the fairest thing to do,’ he said briefly.”

I know of dozens of people who could do a beautiful job in explaining the politics that had conceivably brought this decision and I'll leave that to them. I am merely looking at this from a legal perspective. Let’s examine what the AG had said, point for point:

“…it was difficult to pinpoint exactly who threw the brick that had injured officer Dadi Abdul Rani.”

Wait a minute. Isn't this what the AG should have thought of in the first place? How in God's name did he even get to be the country's top prosecutor if he does not know something as fundamental as this? Or did he actually think it was a brilliant strategy to charge 31 people with the crime so that somewhere along the proceedings he could find out who the actual brick-thrower was and drop the charge against the remaining 30 people?

I could be very strict but this is not the time.

Excuse me, but there is only so much humour I can take, intended or otherwise. How the hell can you be very strict and very funny at the same time? You are out on a limb here, my friend, prosecuting a case that would not have survived a day in any country with self-respecting courts and judges.

Since attempted murder is a non-bailable offence, you had the audacity to argue that all 31 be denied bail without knowing who really threw the brick. You got what you wanted in sending the 31 to jail. They were as innocent as anyone before the law until proven guilty. You did that despite some of the accused saying they were students who were at the temple to offer pre-dawn prayers for a Hindu festival.

One of the people you incarcerated for two weeks was an 18-year-old with a hole in his heart. You ignored the cries of this boy's parents and sent him to jail. Instead of being remorseful for shaming the law and the office you are supposed to protect, you now have the cheek to imply how lenient you have been in dropping the original charges against these 31 people. You are right about one thing though, this certainly wasn't the time for you to be strict (or funny).

This is not a goodwill gesture (to them). This is the fairest thing to do.

Absolutely! You see, in trying to bring forth his humanity for us all to see, the man has uttered the profound truth, "This is not a goodwill gesture." What he means is those people should not have been charged in the first place with something as ludicrous as attempted murder. "This was the fairest thing to do" because I, as the AG, was patently unfair with the earlier charge I preferred against them.

And as though this paragon of our justice system had not done enough to destroy any respectability left in this country's legal institution, a lawyer representing the accused said something that would have made any self-respecting member of the Malaysian Bar belch. Defence counsel GK Ganesan was quoted as telling Malaysiakini that "The AG showed extreme compassion and understanding" in dropping the attempted murder charge.

Extreme compassion and understanding? Where in the world did this Ganesan read his law? I understand that he was probably compassionate and understanding enough to represent the 31 people without charging them any legal fees and his foremost task was to secure their freedom from detention. But must he become a complete eunuch and lap the AG's face like a dog simply because he got the bone he wanted?

I do not, for one moment, doubt that if the original charge was upheld, some wonderful judge in our courts would have found all the 31 people guilty of trying to kill an innocent policemen with a single but extremely lethal brick. I believe Ganesan had read the script too and therefore focused his energies on getting these people off the murder charge instead of preparing for a lengthy court battle.

He could have been tactful and appropriate by saying something like "I believe the AG finally did what was right." But instead, Ganesan chose to shame his colleagues by heaping praise on a man who is everything a public prosecutor shouldn't be.

To me, the story of the Hindraf 31 in court is another brilliant chapter in Malaysia's justice annals, paling only to the Anwar Ibrahim trials which earned our judges global infamy. Just like how the AG in that case (none other than the late superior of the present clown) decided to put the cart before the horse in bringing a cover-up charge against the former deputy premier instead of the actual sodomy charge he had allegedly committed, the incumbent in the top prosecutor's job decided to charge all 31 people arrested at the Batu Caves temple with hope that somewhere along the way the real brick-thrower might be in the group and gets what he deserves – that is, if the culprit was caught in the first place.