Gobind Singh Deo's endorsement of Abdul Gani Patail as the new Attorney-General may be made in earnest but it appears rather flawed.

The fact that Gobind is the son of Karpal Singh or that his stand clearly contradicts with that of DAP, is not the real issue here. (Gobind is also the national publicity bureau secretary)

It is Gobind's arguments in support of Gani as AG that should be the main focus.

Gobind wrote: "I am firmly of the view that Datuk Abdul Gani ought to be given the opportunity to prove himself as AG before anyone has the right to criticise his appointment".

This does not make any sense at all. Gani has to prove his worth before occupying the AG's chair.

He may have the calibre, and may be the most senior in line, but Gani is not fit at all to be AG given his controversial conduct as senior public prosecutor in several high-profile cases.

The public has every right to have their say in the choice of a proposed candidate for AG, just as Gobind has every right to endorse the appointment.

Gobind also said: "No doubt, people feel that some of the decisions taken by Abdul Gani in various high profile cases were inappropriate. However, Abdul Gani had every right to make those decisions and they have been criticised appropriately by various institutions through various venues, including the courts" ( NST Dec 16).

Gani's decisions were more than "inappropriate" as there were serious allegations of prosecutorial impropriety and the obstruction of justice made against him.

The letter of lawyer (and witness) Manjit Singh Dhillon to the then AG Mohtar Abdullah, described Gani as allegedly resorting to "blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability" to get S Nallakaruppan to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar, in a police report, alleged that Mohtar and Gani have "subverted the cause of justice and violated the law" by not prosecuting Rafidah Aziz for corruption.

(In a Dang Wangi Police Report (No 20255/9) Anwar had attached a document signed by Gani stipulating that a prima facie case had been made against Rafidah Aziz on five counts of corruption. No action has been taken to date.)

These serious allegations leave Gani with little credibility and integrity.

Gani had allowed himself to be used and his position to be abused. His appointment as AG is therefore seen as a political reward by those who had gained from the compromises that Gani had made - in practice and principle.

Gobind remarked: "Legal practice is not easy with prosecutors having an equally stressful job to do."

If stress was a major factor for Gani then he should not be given the more stressful job of being the next AG.

Gobind concluded: "I believe the criticism leveled against Abdul Gani in the past is material enough to make him more cautious of his role as AG, and perhaps a better candidate for the position."

On the contrary - the criticisms will remain a stigma as long as Gani remains silent on his alleged misconduct.

The statement by Karpal Singh gives us good counsel: "In the public's interest, it is vital that the AG, who is the highest legal officer in the country, be like 'Caesar's wife', above suspicion" ( The Star , Dec 19, 2001).

Gobind's confidence in a 'born-again' Gani can only be described as mere wishful thinking.