Key task force recommendations after Thomas' book probe

A special task force report on former attorney-general Tommy Thomas' book was made publicly available yesterday.

The cabinet set up the task force last year to probe the book titled ‘My Story: Justice in the Wilderness’ which documented Thomas’ time as attorney-general.

The report was declassified by the cabinet on Sept 30 and made available last night.

Below is a summary of recommendations made by the task force:

Separate AG and public prosecutor

The task force recommended that the role of the public prosecutor be separated from the attorney-general.

An attorney-general’s role should be limited to advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the government on legal affairs.

Apart from determining if a case can be prosecuted and conducting the prosecution of charges, the task force said the public prosecutor should also be able to advise the Agong and rulers on the granting of pardon or commutation of sentences.

These were recommendations by the task force on the topic of “selective prosecution”. However, the report gave no example of “selective prosecution” on Thomas’ part.

Independence in judicial appointments

The task force recommended that the government amend Section 5(1)(f) of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009.

This is to prohibit the prime minister from advising the Agong on the appointment of any person to judicial offices in superior courts who are not selected and recommended by the Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC).

The law should also prevent the prime minister from having a role in the appointment of four “eminent” members of the JAC.

The task force also recommended improvements to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission to prevent the attorney-general from being involved in the appointment of judicial officers.

Protecting government secrecy

The task force alleged that the contents of Thomas’ book revealed communications between him, the Agong, the prime minister, and the chief justice.

Thomas’ book also revealed information concerning proceedings in the Pardons Board and negotiations between the federal government and parties involved in government contracts.

In view of this, the task force recommended that Thomas be probed under Section 203A of the Penal Code (illegal disclosure of information) and Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act 1972 (wrongful communication of official secrets).

The Equanimity superyacht

The task force recommended an investigation into whether Thomas had the authority to accept the offer from Genting Bhd to sell The Equanimity below the price fixed by the Admiralty Court.

The task force said Thomas also did so without reference to the “legal and beneficial owner” of The Equanimity which is 1MDB Group and the Minister of Finance Incorporated.

Neither was reference made to the National Anti-Financial Crime Centre (NFCC), said the task force.

“On the basis of what is written (in Thomas’ book), it would appear that the acceptance of the Genting offer of US$126 million was a unilateral decision of Thomas himself.

“This begs the question of whether Thomas, as an AG, has the authority to immediately accept the said offer without referring the offer to 1MDB and its shareholders for consideration and approval,” said the task force.

The task force also recommended an investigation on whether there was a link between the sale of the vessel and the withdrawal of the court case against Genting and the reinstatement of the tax incentive given to Genting in 2014, resulting in a loss of revenue for the government of Malaysia and a corresponding monetary gain to Genting.

Conflict of interest

The task force recommended that Ganesan Nethi be probed by the MACC for a conflict of interest.

Ganesan, whom Thomas described in his book as a former partner, was appointed by Thomas to draft all charges against Goldman Sachs.

The task force said it was satisfied with explanations from the attorney general’s chambers that Thomas may not have acted outside his constitutional or statutory powers in appointing private lawyers to handle legal assignments.

However, appointing a former partner rendered the cases potentially open to judicial scrutiny and/or was amenable to judicial review over conflict of interest.

“Even if Ganesan offered his services on a pro bono (basis) or the fact that he was not paid is immaterial. This is because gratuity is very widely defined in the MACC Act 2009,” said the task force.

Similarly, the task force also recommended a probe into whether there was a conflict of interest in the appointment of Vinayak Pradhan as the director of the Asia International Arbitration Centre (AIAC).

“Throughout the book, there is overwhelming evidence to show the close and cosy relationship between Thomas and Vinayak.

“Their relationship started from their secondary schooling days,” said the task force.

The task force also accused Thomas of usurping the powers of then-law minister Liew Vui Keong in the appointment and/or removal of the director of the AIAC.

Seditious statements

The task force alleged that Thomas had made seditious statements in his book in relation to his comments on the May 13, 1969 riots.

In view of this, the task force recommended that Thomas be investigated under Section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 8A of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and Section 124I of the Penal Code.

Report on probe into Tommy Thomas book now viewable by public

Make AG a publicly elected position, urges Kepong MP

Kit Siang: Ismail Sabri's order on Thomas sends justice into wilderness

Probe into Thomas' book tainted by PM's 'political ammo' admission - Ambiga

PM: Use reports on Thomas’ book, Pulau Batu Puteh as ‘political ammo’