AG escapes RM10 pay cut, gov't to probe claims

Opposition parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang failed to persuade the Dewan Rakyat to deduct RM10 from Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail’s salary for failure to discharge his duties, but the government has agreed to consider the allegations against him.

In an unprecedented move today, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said that he will refer the claims against Abdul Gani ( left ) to the cabinet before the government decides on its next move.

In his motion today, Lim cited to a large extent the open testimony of former Kuala Lumpur Crime Investigation Department (CID) chief Mat Zain Ibrahim who accused several prominent government figures of meddling with evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim ‘black-eye’ case.

Lim (DAP-Ipoh Timor) tabled the motion at the Supply Bill 2011 committee stage debate.

“Abdul Gani stands accused of fabricating evidence in Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye investigation in 1998. It stands unrebutted although made by the police officer responsible for the investigation 12 years ago,” said Lim.

Lim ( right ) read out paragraphs from an email he had received from Mat Zain defending his credibility. Mat Zain had been accused of fabricating evidence relating to the ‘black eye’ incident, together with Abdul Gani and inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan (while he was senior investigation officer in 1998).

He resurrected Mat Zain’s plea of innocence to the claims and instead pointed the finger at Abdul Gani by recounting how the latter had allegedly interfered in the case.

In July 2008, Anwar filed a police report accusing Abdul Gani, Musa and one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof and Mat Zain of falsifying a medical report on his ‘black eye’ case, and this was later investigated by the then Anti-Corruption Agency (now renamed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, MACC).

The authorities later cleared Musa and Abdul Gani of the allegations, but the status of Mat Zain and Abdul Rahman remains uncertain.

Was it a deliberate conspiracy?

However, Lim said that despite continuous pressure, the Home Ministry had failed to provide a “satisfactory” reply on the matter.

“I’m shocked that Home Minister Hishammuddin (Hussein) did not reply to me at all on Mat Zain’s damning indictment of the criminal justice system and when I asked him why there was no response him when he sat down at the end of his two-hour long winding-up speech, he gave an outrageous reply that I never raised the matter in my two-hour speech.

“Either the home minister was dishonest or he had been deceived by his officers, which means the home minister is not the master of his ministry.

“How could this happen, unless it is part of a deliberate conspiracy to ignore and cover up the biggest scandal in the history of criminal justice in Malaysia,” slammed Lim.

He also asked why the AG closed the case involving private investigator P Balasubramaniam and his damning statutory declarations in July 2008, implicating Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

In an immediate reaction, Balasubramaniam insisted that his second statutory declaration was false, and he urged the authorities to reopen the case.

“Is the AG prepared to take up Balasubramaniam’s challenge and charge him with the crime of making a false statutory declaration and if not, why not?” demanded Lim.

He said failure to push for action against Balasubramaniam and the allegations had “far-reaching” consequences.

Lim even went further to blame the AG’s silence for the decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) and the brain drain.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, backing the motion, said that “the crime that was committed with impunity repeats itself”.

He added that just because it involves the opposition so “it is all right” to let it go without any further investigation into Mat Zain’s allegations.

‘Only the AG can defend himself’

But Mohd Nazri, representing the government, argued that the motion should not be passed as the AG should be given a chance to defend himself.

“This is not the place to make such a decision. This notice has not been given to him (AG) he needs to come before the House to defend himself,” he said.

“We want to avoid a kangaroo court (but) if we do this it will a kangaroo court,” he said, adding that instead he will take the concerns raised to the cabinet for further action.

During voting after the motion was debated, deputy speaker Ronald Kiandee ( right ) caused an uproar when he mistakenly said that there are more voices saying ‘yea’ than ‘nay’ although it was clear that there were more MPs saying ‘nay’.

The opposition legislators immediately stood up and clapped, but Kiandee tried to correct his mistake by retracting his remark, saying that there were more ‘nays’.

This then led to the opposition crying foul. Ignoring their protest, he then called for voting en bloc after 15 opposition members stood up in protest.

However, as the government holds the parliamentary majority, the motion was denied after 85 voted against it while 50 supported the motion.