The probe into SRC International Sdn Bhd did not culminate in a prosecution because there was no case, said BN strategic communications director Abdul Rahman Dahlan.

He said the attorney-general decides on whether a case is prosecuted or otherwise as check-and-balance to ensure there is no abuse of power, including by investigating bodies.

“If an investigator has the intention to betray someone he/she is investigating, the prosecutor can thwart this, and if the investigator and prosecutor collude, then the court can block this...”

Let me get this right. The spotlight is now on the investigating body for betrayal?

From the above statement by the learned minister, what I understand is that an investigator cannot betray the person whom he or she is investigating.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, an investigator should not be bound by any form of emotional attachment to anyone he or she is investigating. If there is any form of emotional attachment, then that investigator should not be investigating that person in the first place. Someone else should investigate.

Secondly, perception of betrayal is in no way any form of consideration when deciding whether a person should be investigated or not. It is for this very reason why an investigator should be independent.

Thirdly, how on Earth can a prosecutor show that an investigator has the intention of betraying the person he or she is investigating when the investigation is supposed to be independent and neutral and based on evidence?

Fourthly, the prosecutor cannot use betrayal as a reason not to prosecute when the investigation and evidence shows otherwise. This would amount to the usurpation of the powers of the investigating body.

In other words, if the investigator forwards investigation papers to the prosecutor, the prosecutor cannot say that the investigator is betraying the person he or she had investigated.

That runs foul of every aspect of the criminal justice system.

As far as I can recall, betrayal is not a defence in law for a criminal offence.

When Anwar Ibrahim defended his recent criminal prosecution, he asserted political conspiracy which resulted in malicious prosecution. He did not say in court that he was betrayed. He said that despite evidence to the contrary, he was nevertheless charged and prosecuted.

Going by the learned minister’s logic, the following apparently would make sense.

If a mother reports that her child is missing, the fact that the child is missing means that the mother never gave birth to the child.

If a contractor builds a house and the house totally collapses to the ground, the fact that the house is no longer there means that the contractor never built the house in the first place.

So you can see how senseless that approach can be.

PUTHAN PERUMAL is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.