While there has been a lot of criticism on the lack of explanation to drop the graft charges against former Penang chief minister and present Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng, a deputy minister feels there is no requirement under the law to explain this.

Mohamad Hanipa Maidin, who is a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and in charge of law, said in response to Permatang Pauh MP and PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar that he also disagrees with the suggestion that MACC be granted powers to prosecute.

Hanipa said while he considers Nurul Izzah wanting the chambers to explain the decision to be a fair request, but strictly and under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution, the attorney-general has no need or a statutory duty to explain.

"However, with respect, and sorry to say, I do not agree with Nurul Izzah’s statement that prosecutorial powers should be given to the MACC.

"For me, while the suggestion is good on one hand, it may result in a conflict of interest.

"The MACC, like the police, is an investigation agency. It's task is to investigate. If an investigation agency is given the powers to prosecute, then, with respect, it is not good practice or a universally adopted practice," he added.

Hanipa, who is also Sepang MP from Amanah, said if there is a conflict of interest, it would not facilitate prosecution but create problems.

"Relatively, an accused person could be easily be freed (or gain an acquittal)," said Hanipa who was a former practising lawyer.

The MACC said it was “very shocked” by the decision of the prosecution to drop its case against Lim and some of them in the graft-busting agency said they were not consulted.

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad also expressed shock over the decision.

Attorney-general Tommy Thomas announced that he had recused himself from making any decision regarding Lim's case, since he had represented Lim in a contempt proceeding initiated by his predecessor Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Criminal lawyer and author Baljit Singh Sidhu agreed with Hanipa that under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the attorney-general is not required to explain the reasons for his decision.

The attorney-general, he said, can level charges on an accused person based on the investigation papers and also has the power to discontinue the prosecution.

He noted that the such powers were given to the attorney-general or his officers under the relevant laws, adding that it was unnecessary for the MACC to make an issue out of it.

Another lawyer, KA Ramu, said that while he agrees that the attorney-general can drop the charges at his discretion, it would be better to explain the reasons behind it.

He said that with the advent of social media and online information, we have to follow developments such as measures being adopted in Britain and Australia, where explanations are given in similar situations.

Today, PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan urged that a parliamentary white paper be tabled to explain Lim's acquittal on the two charges.