Attorney-General Apandi Ali is risking a conflict of duty in advising Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to avoid offering a personal explanation on allegations surrounding the RM2.6 billion donation channelled into his private account, claimed a PKR lawmaker.

Padang Serai MP N Surendran in a statement today said that Apandi's advice to Najib could be in conflict with his duty to institute prosecutions, since the Umno president is currently being investigated on the allegations raised.

"By virtue of Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, the AG also has the power to institute prosecution for any offence.

"Since the premier is himself the subject of investigation in this matter, the AG would be in conflict with his duty to institute prosecutions, should he at the same time advise the PM on any aspect whatsoever of the monies in his account," he said in response to minister in charge of parliamentary affairs Azalina Othman Said.

Azalina had last Thursday reportedly said that Najib was advised by Apandi against personally answering the questions raised by MPs in the Dewan Rakyat, citing concerns of alleged sub judice .

Najib's statement recorded

It was also reported on Saturday that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission had recorded Najib's statement on SRC International, a former 1MDB subsidiary, and the RM2.6 billion fund.

Surendran, meanwhile, also said that Article 145(2) of the Federal Constitution, which accords advisory powers to the AG on legal matters, should only apply to issues that arise in the course of official ministerial or prime ministerial duties.

"Obviously, by the terms of Article 145 and as a public servant, the AG cannot and may not advise the PM on any personal or non-official matters.

"The PM would have to seek out private lawyers for such advice," he said in noting that the RM2.6 billion was deposited into Najib's private account and is therefore a personal matter with no connection to his official duties.

In acknowledging public concerns on the matter, Najib and the Umno leadership had maintained that the fund was a form of political donation which was not intended for his personal use.