There are different legal opinions as to whether Abdul Gani Patail can be sacked as attorney-general without a tribunal as stipulated in Article 145(6) of the Federal Constitution.

Gerakan Youth chief Tan Keng Liang, who is also a practising lawyer, said Gani can only be removed by means of Article 145(5) of the Federal Constitution.

This clause states that the attorney-general holds office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and 'may at any time resign his office' unless he is a member of cabinet.

He explained that Article 145(6) explicitly states that it (the clause) can only apply to the attorney-general 'immediately prior to the coming into operation of' the Federal Constitution.

"Thus, Article 145(6) applies only to the first attorney-general, Thomas Vernor Alexander Brodiie, who served from 1955 to 1959.

"Article 145(6) is therefore redundant," Tan ( photo ) told Malaysiakini.

However, Tan said that he believed that the termination of an Attorney-General should rightfully be done through a tribunal as mentioned in Article 145(6).

Meanwhile, constitutional expert said that Article 145(6) was subject to interpretation.

"Abdul Gani should take the matter to court and let the courts interpret the law," said the lawyer, who requested anonymity.

Security of tenure

Similarly, lawyer Gobind Singh Deo said Article 145(6), like other provisions in the Federal Constitution, must be considered broadly.

He argued that Article 145(6) applies to all attorneys-general because they must enjoy security of tenure in order to carry out their duties without fear or favour.

"This is a very serious matter. The attorney-general has sole powers to institute criminal proceedings under the Federal Constitution.

"He must have security of tenure in order to carry out his duties without fear or favour and he cannot be removed from office just like that.

"In this case , Abdul Gani was also part of the special task force probing matters relating to 1MDB and the prime minister. So how can he just be removed from office in an instant?" said Gobind ( photo ).

He argued that Abdul Gani's removal was likely unconstitutional and could set a very dangerous precedent that would ruin any form of independence on the part of the attorney-general.

"We cannot have this. If it is unconstitutional, then it must be corrected forthwith.

“If nothing is done and it is allowed to remain, then we should be prepared for a complete collapse in our criminal justice system and more in the making," warned Gobind.