A practising lawyer with a special fiat (authority) from the government can prosecute the attorney-general in a case that involves the AG personally, de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz says.

“The AG cannot be prosecuted (directly), as an individual, by those working under him, as it is difficult for his subordinates to do so. Under the constitution, a fiat can be given to an individual, a practising lawyer for example, to prosecute,” said Nazri.

He was replying to a supplementary question from Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) during Question Time in the Dewan Rakyat today. Gobind had asked how a complaint against the AG would be handled.

NONE Nazri ( right )  explained that in cases that may represent a conflict of interest or personal involvement of the AG, where the AG cannot be given the power to prosecute, there are many other prosecutors in the Attorney-General’s Chambers who can do the job.

Gobind was referring to allegations raised by former KL CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim in a recent Malaysiakini interview that the current AG had been involved in withholding prosecution in a corruption case involving a chief minister.

Mat Zain also quoted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigations chief Mohd Shukri Abdull as complaining that the AG’s Chambers had refused to charge many corruption cases investigated by the anti-graft body.

No prosecution powers for the MACC

In his answer to Gobind’s original question, Nazri reiterated the government’s stand that it would not seek to amend the constitution to give prosecution powers to investigating agencies like the MACC.

This, Nazri said, was because to prosecute a case, one must be of “independent mind” and he went on to quote the legal principle that “a man cannot be a judge in his own court”.

Hence, investigation agencies such as the MACC, which already had made its decision on a case, could not preside over the prosecution of the case.

As such, Nazri believes that the AG is such an “independent mind” that will provide such checks over the prosecution of the cases in court, for the “absolute prosecution powers” granted to the attorney-general or similar officers was a common check-and-balance system practised the world over.

Concerns over the AG’s impartiality and his alleged interference in the prosecution of cases was raised by several former senior police officers as well as at least one serving MACC officers.

This has raised suspicions about the “independent mind” of the person given “absolute prosecution power” under the constitution - which has also raised speculation and public concerns.