COMMENT | In defence of the new AG

COMMENT | Several parties, including the electoral watchdog Bersih, have raised concerns over Dusuki Mokhtar’s appointment as the new attorney-general (AG).

One of their primary objections revolves around the alleged role played by Dusuki (above) in allowing the court to grant a verdict of discharging not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to the deputy prime minister cum Umno president over 47 charges in his Yayasan Akal Budi case after the prosecution applied for such an astonishing verdict.

When Zahid was granted the DNAA, Dusuki was the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) appellate and trial division acting head. Therefore, he was allegedly involved in the argument to release Zahid with a DNAA. Be that as it may, critics argue Dusuki must be guilty by association.

With due respect the aforesaid argument, in my view, does not hold water. No doubt the decision by the AGC to allow Zahid to be granted the DNAA was, with the greatest respect, definitely a bad decision. One does not have to become a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to question such a mind-boggling verdict.

Nonetheless, is it fair to blame Dusuki for such a questionable verdict when the final call for such a decision did not, in fact, come from him in the first place? One thing is for sure he definitely did not call the shots.

Based on Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, it was his boss at the time who called the shots and nothing could have happened without his then-boss saying so. That is how the system works.

Under such circumstances, it would be grossly unfair to apportion any blame to Dusuki for Zahid’s DNAA.

As far as politics is concerned, a reasonable perception would have been Zahid’s DNAA had to do with the purported political survivability of the unity government. Hitherto the government, especially the prime minister, has been facing strenuous censure due to Zahid’s DNAA. Some critics even argue that because of Zahid’s DNAA, the consistent calls by the prime minister to combat corruption and abuse of power seem to ring hollow.

In law, it would definitely defy logic for a person who was called for a defence for 47 criminal charges be granted DNAA after the prosecution managed to establish a prima facie against such a person. After all, in calling any accused person for his defence, the law requires the court to carry out the maximum evaluation of all evidence presented by the prosecution. It is trite law.

Everybody knows that the learned High Court judge (as he then was) had ruled that the prosecution succeeded in establishing prima facie (answerable case) against Zahid over 12 charges for criminal breach of trust (CBT) under Section 409 of the Penal Code; eight charges under Section 16(a)(B) of the MACC Act 2009; and 27 charges under Section 4(1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.

As far as I am concerned, we should give the new AG a chance to prove that his appointment was not a mistake. While it is unfair to blame him for Zahid’s DNAA, Bersih and other critics should have posted this question to Dusuki: “Sir, are you willing - without fear or favour - to indict Zahid once again?”

After all, under the law one who is granted a DNA is not absolutely free! He can always be indicted again. It is hoped the new AG has the necessary guts to exercise his prosecutorial power without fear or favour.

MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy law minister.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

PN MP asks if Dusuki 'rewarded' with AG's post for Zahid's DNAA

Bersih: PSSC should have been involved in AG selection

Report: Apex court judge Hasnah set to be chief judge of Malaya

Idrus now a member of JAC

Dusuki is new attorney-general