There will be no live debate between Sodomy II prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Bar Council president Christopher Leong because the Bar believes this is not ethical behaviour for a public prosecutor.

Leong said this after Multimedia and Communication Minister Ahmad Shabery Cheek (below) urged the Bar to debate Shafee.

A public prosecutor speaks for the public office, Leong said, and any clarifications on the case must done in a "clinical, measured and dispassionate manner".

"There certainly should be no place for roadshows or debates," he said.

A roadshow or a debate by the prosecutor is also not encouraged because it could “potentially embarrass, or affect the public confidence” of the prosecutor’s office, he continued.

"Does a fiat given to a prosecutor to conduct a prosecution confer a licence to embark on a public tirade against a convicted and incarcerated person, or has the prosecutor-by-fiat been nevertheless authorised by the public prosecutor to undertake these activities?"

The International Association of Prosecutors’ guidelines among others states that prosecutors must maintain dignity, be impartial and "remain unaffected by sectional interests and public or media pressure".

The UN’s Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors also states that prosecutors must "avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination", he said.

Similarly, solicitors in Malaysia are governed by the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, he said, and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail must clarify if the same applies to public prospectors-in-fiat like Shafee.

"The Bar raises these issues and asks questions because it is pro-rule of law and pro-justice.  The Bar is neither pro-Opposition nor pro-Government."

'The law is only good if it is fair'

Shafee last week spoke about the case at two events, including an Umno Youth forum where he revealed in camera testimony about the sex act between Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Leong said whether or not revealing in camera evidence is improper or in contempt depends on the terms set by the court.

"(This) could only be ascertained from the notes of court proceedings on the matter.

"Any breach thereof would be a matter for the parties involved in the criminal trial or the court itself to take up," he said.

Leong said an example of a measured response was shown in the AG’s press release to clarify why Anwar was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code, which deals with consensual sodomy.

Even so, Leong said, the AG could do better by providing statistics of prosecutions under the same section from 1990s, instead of just from 2010 to 2014.

He noted that Section 377A of the Penal Code also criminalises oral sex, and statistics on prosecutions under this section would be helpful.

Further, Section 377D of the same code had previously been used against a participant or abettor in consensual sodomy.

Shafee in the Umno Youth forum explained that Saiful was not charged for the act so as to not discourage other potential complainants from coming forward.  

However, Leong asked if it policy to grant immunity to participants of an offence instead of offering a lesser sentence in exchange for admission.

"The law is only as good and as if it is consistently and equally applied and enforced," Leong said.