I can only feel the predicament of my friend Zulkipli Mat Noor, the embattled senior public servant now being accused publicly and being tried by the court of public opinion. While I support the need for 'new and transparent investigations about the allegations, and the subsequent trial and conviction, if need be', I think we should all ponder who really may be the culprits under trial, if not the appointing authorities for the post of ACA chief?
In our parliamentary system of constitutional governance and under our inherited system of civil justice, every person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, as a friend of the person involved, I plead with the media to treat the ACA chief as innocent until the incumbent is actually proven guilty for some real offence. That is also the meaning of the concept of 'fiduciary duty' under our rule of law principle. It includes non-action by those in authority, when they had the power but applied discretion to do so or otherwise.
To understand the principle issue of my concern more objectively and professionally, allow me to raise some more serious issues and questions for all our contemplation. Currently, all the accusations made are related to his tenure as a police officer more than 8-10 years ago (are they outside our statute of limitations?). He was previously cleared by the police authorities, and obviously as is evident from newspaper reports now, by even the Attorney-General's Chambers; all prior to his appointment.
Those with the relevant fiduciary authority and responsibility at that time did not object to his appointment as the ACA chief. These included the IGP, the chief secretary of the Home Ministry, the head of Public Services Department and the then chief secretary to the government. Based on the wisdom of the JPA's recommendations and the appropriate appointment authorities then, my friend was proposed and accepted as the right man for the job of ACA chief. That is all now more than six years ago, from about 2001, when he was appointed.
Maybe the AG who 'now appears smarter after the fact' may be ready to answer why the case was not pursued or why it was simply dropped, or why he was cleared of wrongdoing but still appointed.
My question therefore - why all this only now, six years after the fact, and a full three years into the reign of our Mr Clean Prime Minister? Why is this case only hitting the front page of the newspapers now? Why was such a senior appointment for a very delicate role not positively cleared before his appointment? I believe, under our legal framework, the ACA chief must, therefore, be seen to be innocent until proven otherwise. Neither can he simply be tried by the Select Parliamentary Committee on Integrity to my mind.
While the select committee may be right in questioning why he was appointed and reappointed with such accusations outstanding before the AG, I believe they are out of their jurisdiction if they follow through with their decision and call up the ACA chief and his accuser. If I were the accused incumbent, as a senior police officer, I would not submit myself to such an investigation by an inappropriate jurisdiction.
As the ACA director-general is an appointed member of the executive, I believe this case raises some very foundational and fundamental questions related to the role of Parliament as a lawmaker but also as an overseer of certain principles of jurisprudence.
Therefore, my five questions to constitutional lawyers, professors and the AG are:
- Does the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity have the legal authority to investigate such a case which is before the police and the AG, especially regarding an accusation before he was appointed as the ACA chief?
