First Three Months Of Tommy Thomas As Attorney General
Tommy Thomas assumed office as Attorney General (AG) on June 4, 2018
amidst cheers that he is a “constitutional law expert and civil litigator”; “an
excellent choice for his expertise in the law and understanding of human
issues” - Herald (Malaysian Catholic Church newspaper); “he holds an enormous
amount of experience, making him a (way) more-than qualified candidate for the
job” – Esquire; “committed, charismatic and vocal” – Esquire; the first member
of the Bar: first non-Malay (Indian) and
non-Muslim (Christian) and a lot more, to be so appointed since Merdeka.
The inference is that, at last, after more than half a century, a
person of real calibre has been appointed and only after the fall of the UMNO
(Malay) dominated federal government. The other inference is that all former
AGs who were Malays, Muslims and from the Judicial and Legal Service, to put it
mildly, were less qualified.
Three weeks later
(June 25, 2018) I wrote the article “Is the new AG choosing his briefs like a
private lawyer?” This article was written after he made the statement that his
stand was the same as that of the Bar Council that the post of AG and Public
Prosecutor (PP) should be separate and that his priority was as the legal
advisor to the government. In “Should the post of AG and PP be separate? (July
12, 2018; NST July 15, 2018, I wrote “Even
if we separate the two posts, in my view, generally speaking, for the post of
PP, an officer of the JLS is a more suitable candidate. I have no second choice.”
I pointed out that, until the Constitution and the Criminal
Procedure Code (CPC) are amended, he is both AG and PP. That is what he is paid
for. There is no question of him only doing the AGs work and not PPs. I also
pointed out that AGs like Tan Sri Abu Talib, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah and Tan
Sri Gani Patail always led the prosecution in high profile, public interest
cases.
Lim Guan Eng’s Case
On July 30, 2018 The New Straits Times
reported the High Court Penang had fixed Sept 3 for the
Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide on whether to proceed or drop the
corruption case against former Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and
businesswoman Phang Li Koon.
“The
defence counsels for both Lim and Phang...had each made a representation to the
new Attorney-General (AG) for the case to be dropped...”, the report
continued.
“We have asked the AG to
consider withdrawing the charges.” Ramkarpal
was quoted to have said.
On August 2, 2018 Tommy Thomas issued a statement that he would not
be involved in the decision whether or not to further prosecute Lim Guan Eng. We came to know later that he had appointed Dato’ Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria (Dato’
Hanafiah) Head of the Appellate and Trial
Division of the AGC, I believe, the new name for the
division I was heading thirty years earlier, to do the job for him. As head of
a division, in the AGC hierarchy, he is on the third layer, with AG on the
first later, the Solicitors General on the second layer.
Do you think he does not know that Tommy Thomas was the counsel for
Lim Guan Eng in that case immediately before his appointment as AG? Do you
think he does not know that Lim Guan Eng is the Minister of Finance? Do you
think he does not know that that if Lim Guan Eng is convicted, most probably he
will lose his job? Do you think he does not know that Tommy Thomas was the
DAP’s candidate for AG? Do you think he would not perceive, rightly or wrongly,
the reason for Tommy Thomas’ appointment? Do you think he would not perceive,
rightly or wrongly, the decision Tommy Thomas would prefer? Do you think he
does not know that his promotion depends on Tommy Thomas?
Even if Tommy Thomas does not sign the letter to withdraw the
charges, on whose behalf does Dato’ Hanafiah sign it?
On September 3, 2019, the New Straits Times Online reported that the
Penang High Court had granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal on Lim Guan
Eng and Phang Li Koon over their corruption charges.
“This followed an application made by Deputy Public
Prosecutor Datuk Masri Mohd Daud to the court, based on a representation sent
by the defence to the Attorney- General to withdraw the case, on July 6.
Masri had applied for a discharge not amounting to
an acquittal.
Lim’s lead counsel, Ramkarpal Singh, and Phang’s
lead counsel, Datuk V. Sithambaram, had requested for a full acquittal.
Judge Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, in her judgment,
agreed with the counsels that the charges “cannot be hanging over the head of
the accused indefinitely.”
She stressed that there must be “finality.”
She said a total of 25 witnesses had been called and
the case was last heard in March.
“The court cannot be slow. After six months, the
prosecution has not proceeded with the matter. We do not conduct cases on
instalments. There must be a stop. No commas.
“The charge cannot be left hanging over the head of
the accused indefinitely. We cannot be waiting for another six months for the
case to proceed.
“I cannot agree with the prosecution’s application
because by doing so the court cannot close the case file. That cannot be the
case. If we want to proceed, then we should proceed from A to Z.
“So after studying the whole case, and the long
duration to get the decision, the court orders both accused to be discharged
amounting to an acquittal,” she said.”
I think I have to pause here and clarify the
various terms used, particularly, after Dato’ Hanafiah came out with the Latin
term nolle prosequi, which not many
people know how to pronounce, let alone know the meaning.
The terms that have been used are “withdrawing
the charges”, “dropping the case,” “offering no further evidence” and “to enter nolle prosequi (where
Public Prosecutor does not propose further to prosecute the accused).” For our
present purpose, it is sufficient to say that they mean the same thing as Dato’
Hanafiah said, i.e. “where Public Prosecutor
does not propose further to prosecute the accused”.
The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides thus:
“254. (1) At any stage of any trial, before the delivery
of judgment, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the Court that
he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge and thereupon all
proceedings on the charge against the accused shall be stayed and the accused
shall be discharged of and from the same.”
(2) .....
(3) Such discharge shall not
amount to an acquittal unless the Court so directs.”
The difference between a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA)
and a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) is that:
i.
In a DAA, the case comes to
an end.
ii.
In a DNAA, the case remains
on the court register as pending, but no date is fixed for the next appearance.
However, the prosecution may request the court for a new date to continue with
the prosecution. The order is made, for example, where a witness cannot be
traced after a few postponements but the prosecution still wants to proceed
with the case.
In a case where the prosecution informs the court that it does not
intend to prosecute further, the practice is for the court to make an order of
DAA. The reason is that, it was the prosecution that brought the accused to
court and charged him. Later, the prosecution decided that it did not want to
proceed with the prosecution. Why should the case remain on the court register
as a part-heard case and why should the charge be kept hanging on the accused’s
head indefinitely?
In Public Prosecutor v. Syed Abdul Bahari Shahabuddin [1975]
1 LNS 137, it was held:
“(1) unless there are good grounds to the contrary a
discharge under section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code should amount to an
acquittal. Good grounds would arise where the prosecution is unable to proceed
for the time being but can satisfy the court that the temporary impediment is
not insurmountable and that it will proceed within a reasonable time.”
See also Koh Teck Chai v. Public Prosecutor [1967] 1 LNS 72
and Tan Chow Cheang (2018) 6 CLJ 452 (CA)
Then came the MACC,s press release that it was “very shocked” (“amat terkejut”) to hear the news that
Lim Guan Eng Guan was acquitted “after the prosecution had withdrawn the case”.
"The MACC would like to stress that the
decision was made by the Attorney General's office and not the MACC," the statement
says.
This is yet another first. Never in the Malaysian legal history was
there an open clash between the two government departments. This happens after
the MACC had been cleansed of “BN men” by the PH government. So, do not blame
“the inside job of BN men”. The truth is there are many sensible and dedicated
officers there.
As the first Chairman of the Advisory Board of the SPRM, I know
Dato’ Shukri. He is a dedicated and honest officer, indeed there are many like
him there. I salute SPRM for issuing the statement. Perhaps Dato’ Sri Mohd
Shukri is beginning to think that he
should have remained in retirement, after all.
This was followed by Tun Dr.
Mahathir’s comments, made in Brunei Darussalam. He said, “They (MACC) have a right to be shocked.
If they want to be shocked, they can be shocked. I am also shocked.”
Asked to comment on the decision, Dr Mahathir
said that he had never in the past questioned the decision of the courts.
“If the court makes a decision which
to me is wrong, I also never comment (tegur) on it.
“This decision is
made by the court so we have to accept it,” he
said. (The Star Online September 3, 2018)
According
to the video recording of the press conference he also said, “If they (MACC) is not happy, they can
appeal.”
Listening to the way he answered the questions, clearly, he was
trying to belittle the reporter who asked him the question. In so doing, first
he shifted the blame to the court for acquitting Lim Guan Eng instead of to AG
for not further prosecuting the case. The truth is that the judge had no choice
but to discharge Lim Guan Eng, with or without acquittal, because the
prosecution was not going to prosecute him further.
Secondly, regarding his response that if the MACC is not happy, the
MACC could appeal, he was manifestly wrong whether or not there was a full
trial. The MACC is not a party to the case. MACC’s job is only to investigate.
Tun Dr Mahathir
could be excused for not knowing the technicality as he is not a lawyer but he
should have stopped at saying “I too was
shocked.” He could have added,” If
you want to know more, ask the AG.”
On September 4, 2018 Dato’ Hanafiah, the Head, Appellate and Trial
Division issued a press release. He made the following points:
1.
“....the
Hon. Attorney General had no hand in the decision to enter nolle prosequi
(where Public Prosecutor does not propose further to prosecute the accused) on
the charges against Lim Guan Eng and Phang Li
Koon”.
2.
He was “....tasked to decide on the representations made by both Lim Guan Eng
and Phang Li Koon’s case as I had not participated in any way with the case
earlier. Accordingly I was able to consider the matter with a fresh
perspective.”
3.
“Having
given the said task, I have perused the evidence that has been investigated by
MACC and the evidence that have been adduced and tested under cross examination
thus far, I concluded that as a result of the cross- examination of the
prosecution witnesses who has testified so far, the evidence supporting the
first charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act and under Section 165 of the
Penal Code has been substantially weakened. This conclusion was arrived in
light of fresh evidence that have arisen during the cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses.
4.
“Having
made the above findings, I opined that I would not be fulfilling my duties as
Deputy Public Prosecutor to let the case continue knowing full well that that
the case against ..... would not succeed at the end of the prosecution case.
Hence, I decided for the prosecution to enter nolle prosequi against
both....(of them)....in accordance with Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
5.
He
further said, “....I wish to stress that I have decided the representations
without any influence from any quarters.... based on available evidence and
governing law, which I did, without fear or
favour.”
My preliminary comments are, first, I do not believe that this press
release was issued without the approval, including the wording, by the AG.
Secondly, and I direct these questions to Tommy Thomas: If Lim Guan
Eng were not a PH Minister of Finance, would he have tasked Dato’ Hanafiah to
study the case with the view not to further prosecute Lim Guan Eng? If only
Phang Li Koon was charged, would he have done the same? If there was no
representation by counsel for Lim Guan Eng, would he have done the same?
We now come to Dato’ Hanafiah. I have no comments on paragraphs 1, 2
and 5. Paragraphs 3 and 4 may be taken together.
My questions to Dato’ Hanafiah are: Even before he was tasked to
study the case by AG, did the lead DPP, at least, not brief him, from time to
time, how the case was
proceeding? Being such an important case, did he not call the lead
DPP, from time to time to know about the case? Did the lead DPP of the case not
inform him of the effects of the cross-examination and the discovery of fresh
evidence and discussed with him how to overcome it?
Having perused the investigation papers and the notes of evidence
and discovering the weakness of the prosecution’s case arising from the
cross-examination and the discovery of the fresh evidence, did he call the lead
DPP and the MACC officers and discuss the possibility of redressing it by
looking for fresh evidence to rebut the fresh evidence to be adduced by the
defence; the possibility of challenging the admissibility of the defence’s
fresh evidence and the possibility of recalling and calling additional
witnesses. After all, the prosecution has not closed its case.
Dato’ Hanafiah
was never in court. He did not observe the demeanours of the witnesses, instead
he merely read the notes of evidence up to that stage and “opined
that I would not be fulfilling my duties as Deputy Public Prosecutor to let the
case continue knowing full well that that the case against Lim Guan Eng.....
would not succeed at the end of the prosecution case.” Considering the
circumstances under which he was asked to study the case because of the
application by Lim Guam Eng’s counsel not to further prosecute the case, it
looks as if he was merely looking for an excuse not to further prosecute Lim
Guan Eng.
He could write that statement without opening the files. At the very
least, he should have stated the evidence of the relevant part under
examination-in-chief, the evidence under cross-examination and under
re-examination and stated his reasons why he said it had “been substantially weakened”. The test should have been whether
the cross-emanation had caused irreparable damage to the prosecution”s case,
taking into account the evidence of all prosecution witnesses. Did he consider
whether it could be repaired?
In any event, the prosecution had not closed its case yet. Why not
proceed and let the court decide at the end of the prosecution’s case? Was he
afraid that the court would call for the defence?
According to Dato’ Hanafiah, he merely requested for a discharge not
amounting to an acquittal. Was he uncertain about the decision not to further
prosecute or was he merely making a safe decision, the middle may, that he
could not be blamed and his position would not be jeopardised? If the court
orders a DAA, the court will be blamed while Lim Guan Eng, DAP and PH would be
happy and the AG would not feel uncomfortable when meeting Lim Guan Eng?
If the prosecution is really serious that it only wanted a discharge
not amounting to an acquittal, it should appeal against the order. Or, is it
very happy with the result since it got more than what it openly asked for and
could blame the court for it?
Clearly, from the day he was given the task, Dato’ Hanafiah was
under pressure even if from August 2 , 2018 to September 3 , 2018 he did not
meet Tommy Thomas and Tommy Thomas did not say anything to him. Under the
circumstance, he knew he had to decide not to further prosecute Lim Guan Eng
and he had to find a reason for it. So, he came out with reason that he found
the prosecution’s case had
weakened after the cross-examination and the discovery of new
evidence! I feel sorry for him.
I also feel sorry for Dato Hadariah, the Judge, who gets the blame
for doing something right from the court’s perspective.
It would not be complete without reverting to the statement made by
Bersih and the Bar Council.
On September 5, 2018, the Star Online reported a statement issued by
Bersih 0.2.
"With the sudden acquittal of Lim after Pakatan
came into power, another concern arises whether the decision has been made due
to external interference, especially from the Executive," it said in a
statement on Wednesday (Sept 5).
Bersih added that the MACC must be made a
constitutional body, with the appointment of its members being made
transparently.
"This would ensure the anti-corruption body is
free from external interference and does not become a tool of persecution
against political enemies," it said.
................
High Court judge Justice Hadhariah Syed Ismail
acquitted both accused and decided the charges be dropped despite the
prosecution only proposing a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.”
The first paragraph should
be read with the fourth paragraph which will read as follows: The decision by Justice Hadariah to acquit
the accused when the prosecution had only asked for a DNAA has raised concern
whether it was due to external
interference, especially from the Executive.
A few points
arise here:
1. The focus has been shifted to the court, not the AG.
2. It alleges that there might be judicial interference, especially by the
Executive. Bear in mind that the
executive now is the PH Government. Is Bersih suggesting that, in just
three months, the PH Government has started to interfere with the Judiciary?
3. The part played by AG (PP) who does not want to further prosecute the
case which necessitated the discharge of the accused, whether DAA or DNAA, is
not mentioned except that the AG (PP) only wanted a DNAA.
4. The issue whether, considering the surrounding circumstances, it was a
proper exercise of discretion by the AG or not, totally escapes attention.
It calls for MACC to be made
a constitutional body. “This would ensure the anti- corruption body
is free from external interference and does not become a tool of
persecution against
political enemies”. Is Bersih also blaming the MACC
for what had happened? If, according to Bersih, the Judiciary, which is not
only a constitutional body, but one of the three branches of the government,
could be interfered by the Executive, will making MACC a constitutional body
make any difference?
Is the statement quoted in the last paragraph only refers to this
case which was commenced when BN was in power or a general statement applicable
to both governments? Even if, as asserted by Bersih, MACC is “a tool of persecution against political
enemies”, I do not believe that making it a constitutional body will solve
the problem. Human factor counts.
On September 7, 2018 the New Straits Times Online reported:
“The Bar Council has described the prosecution’s
decision to withdraw corruption charges against Lim Guan Eng as “not shocking.”
In a statement, its president George Varughese said
it is the absolute prerogative of the Public Prosecutor to drop charges at any
stage of a trial, before the delivery of judgment.
He said this was provided under Section 254 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
...........
“Further the Deputy Public Prosecutor has since
explained that it was his considered opinion that there is insufficient
evidence to succeed at the end of the prosecution case.”
That statement, coming from
the Bar Council, in this case, is
not at all surprising. Further, it merely restates the law without referring to
the facts surrounding it and takes the easy way out to support the decision by
the prosecution not to further prosecute Lim Guan Eng by saying that Dato’
Hanafiah had “explained that it was his
considered opinion that there is insufficient evidence to succeed at the end of
the prosecution case”. How far is the Bar Council prepared to go to support
the first AG from the Bar? The Bar Council’s integrity and “independence” is
also at stake.
As
I am concluding this part I received a copy of Utusan Malaysia dated September
7, 2018 with the title, on the first page “Tidak
pernah tarik balik kes sedang berjalan
– Abu Talib”. (Never withdrew case still
proceeding”).
Tan Sri Abu Talib
was reported to have said, “.....when I
was AG I never withdrew a case which was still proceeding in the midst of a
trial.” (sedang berjalan dan dalam perbicaraan.)
“If I wanted to withdraw, I would explain to the
police and those who had investigated the case, inform them reasonable grounds
for withdrawing because those who investigated should be respected.” (My translation.)
Tan Sri Abu Talib was AG for 13 years during Tun Dr. Mahathir’s BN
era. He was a member of the Judicial and Legal Service throughout his career.
He was the best prosecutor Malaysia had ever produced. He knows what he is
talking about.
Najib’s cases
The CBT and abuse
of power case
On July 3rd,
2018 The Edge Market reported, “Newly-appointed Attorney-General (AG) Tommy Thomas is expected to lead
the prosecution team when former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is
charged in court tomorrow.” As long a can remember, there had never been
such a press report before. It is as if a celebrity, the greatest of all
prosecutors in the Malaysian legal history would be making his first appearance
in court.
He appeared in court on the following day (July 4, 2018), the day
Najib was charged. Anyone familiar with criminal trials knows that on that day,
the case is fixed for mention. What it means is that the charges will be read
to the accused person by the court interpreter and he will be asked whether he
pleads guilty or claims trial. If, as happened in this case, Najib claimed
trial, another date or dates would be fixed for the trial.
All the AG has to do on the first mention date is to introduce
himself and his team as well as the counsel for the accused person; inform the
court whether he objects to bail being granted; if not how much and give his
free dates for the trial. In this case he asked for more time to prepare his
case causing Najib’s counsel, Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, who had spent his whole
life doing criminal cases, first as a DPP and later as defence counsel, to
remark that, usually, it is the defence counsel who would ask for time as he is
taken by surprise while the prosecution should be ready with the trial when charging a person.
On August 31, 2018, about six months before the date fixed for the
trial (about eight months if we were to calculate from the date Najib was
charged), the AG issued a media release saying that
his responsibilities as AG took precedence and he was unable to devote time to
the case. (August 31st is the Merdeka day and a public holiday. Was
he working in office while the parade was going on down below along the
Boulevard? I pity him if he was).
,
"I have come to the realisation
that I cannot combine these onerous commitments with the simultaneous
preparation and conduct of a seven-week trial in PP v Najib Razak, fixed to
commence on February 12, 2019 and completing on March 29, 2019," he
said.
He would therefore use his discretion under
Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code and appoint Sulaiman Abdullah, a
former President of the Bar Council, to lead the prosecution instead, he said.
This is another first scored by Tommy Thomas.
Never in the legal history of Malaysia did an AG admit he was unable to cope
with the demands of the work as an AG that he had to appoint a private lawyer
to do the prosecution of a case. Or, is he
chickening out because he had no experience in
prosecution and this case is certainly not the kind of case for anyone to learn
to prosecute? In any event, he was given eight month to prepare for the case
while, at the same time, doing other works. No DPP gets eight months or even
one month’s free in order to prepare for a case.
A young DPP has the advantage of being junior
and, therefore, excusable if he makes mistakes. He also has the advantage of
having a senior DPP to depend on. An AG is the PP. He is the No.1 prosecutor.
He cannot be seen to be ignorant, inexperience, incapable or to make stupid
mistakes publicly in such a high profile case, what more with counsel like
Shafee on the opposite side. So, it is better for him “to step aside”.
That is the reality. It proves the point I
made earlier that no private lawyer, no matter how prominent, had seen
investigation papers or had any experience prosecuting. For that reason an AG
appointed from the Judicial and Legal Service has an advantage.
In any event, he has missed the chance to
prove himself as a capable prosecutor, if he is, in the most important and most
controversial case in the Malaysian legal history that will be remembered for a
long time. Hopefully, he will not be remembered as the AG who had chickened out
from prosecuting the former Prime Minister.
Coming to Sulaiman Abdullah, we know that he
was defence counsel in a number of high profile criminal cases. But, he still
lacks experience in leading evidence for the prosecution in a criminal trial.
Is he going to leave that part of the job to the experienced DPPs from the
Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) who would be assisting him and taking over
the submissions, which undoubtedly he could do well? Indeed, Tommy Thomas could
do the same.
Hopefully, Sulaiman’s health can withstand the
pressure of a prolonged trial. We pray
for his good health.
The 1MDB case
Tommy Thomas also scored another first when he
appointed Dato’ Sri Gopal Sri Ram as DPP to study the investigation papers of
1MDB case and, it necessarily follows, to advise him whether there is a prima
facie case to charge Najib. Remember that decision to charge or not is his
discretion, based on evidence before him that he had studied to form his
opinion, not of what someone tells him.
In such an important case, one would expect
the AG himself to study the papers, assisted by the officers and make the decision
himself. Even if he does not, his officers who have spent a decade or more
doing the same job, could be relied on instead of appointing someone from
outside, who had not even seen investigation papers all his life.
In any event, since Tommy Thomas is not even
going to read the investigation papers, clearly, it follows that he will not be
doing the prosecution. So, most likely, he will appoint another member of the
Bar, may be Gopal Sri Ram himself, to
prosecute. Is that what he meant by he will
give top priority to 1MDB case when he was appointed?
In appointing Sulaiman and Gopal Sri Ram to do
the work of the prosecutor, Tommy Thomas has also demoralised the whole of the
Appellate and Prosecution division, indeed the whole of the AGC. It is as if he
has no confidence in his officers who had been doing the work for decades. It
is as if they are incompetent.
That too will be the perception of the public
who know nothing about the work of an AG but cheering Tommy Thomas because he
is their man.
Equanimity case
Earlier, Tommy
Thomas had appointed Sitpath Selvaratnam, a lawyer from his former law firm,
whom he described as “one of Malaysia’s
best leading shipping lawyers” to handle the Equanimity case in court.
I admit I do not have the full facts before me. However, I wonder
whether it was a correct thing to do. This is a criminal case and not a civil
case. Being a civil litigator himself and never a DPP, he was thinking as a
civil lawyer. So, he appointed Ms Sitpath. She may be the best shipping lawyer
in the country, but her expertise may not be relevant. She is a civil lawyer.
This is a criminal case.
Why resort to civil procedure of arresting a ship which is a method
of enforcement of a civil judgment to recover a debt? This is a criminal case.
If the yacht is believed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, why
not use the criminal procedure to seize it in the same way as the millions of
ringgits of cash, jewellery and hundreds of handbags were seized from Najib’s
and Rosmah’s house and apartment? Both the CPC and the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Act, 2009 contain provisions for the purpose.
Remember that in a civil litigation, the losing party has to pay
cost. There are no costs in criminal proceedings.
Withdrawal of charges against PH lawmakers and supporters
On the other hand, Tommy Thomas had done a positive act of
“withdrawing charges” (that is what newspapers reported) against PH MPs, State
Assemblymen, former State Assemblyman and supporters. Hassan Karim, Member of
Parliament (MP) for Pasir Gudang; Thomas Su Keong Siong, MP for Kampar; R
Sivarasa, MP for Sungai Buloh and N Surendran, former MP for Padang Serai all
of whom are PH MPs, PH State Assemblymen or former PH Assemblyman.
He also dropped charges against PH supporters Syarul Ema Rena Abu
Samah, popularly known as “Ratu Naga” and political cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar
Haque, better known as Zunar. They were charged with offences under the
Sedition Act, Communications and Multimedia Commission Act, and the Peaceful
Assembly Act.- Freemalaysiatoday 10 08 2018.
There could be other cases as well which escape my attention.
Sarawak v Petronas case
Tommy Thomas also did not intervene on behalf of the federal
government in a civil suit by Petronas against Sarawak Government over
petroleum issue. That suit involves constitutional issues on the relationship
between federal and state governments and the validity of a federal law, the
Petroleum Development Act, 1974 (Act 144), which the AG should defend.
Case involving the Syariah Advisory Council, Bank Negara
Neither did he intervene in the hearing of a nine-member panel of
the Federal Court to decide on the question whether a ruling of the Syariah
Advisory Council of Bank Negara (as well as of the Securities Commission) on
syariah issues bind the court. That case too involves constitutional issues as
well as the validity of the provisions of federal laws. Is it because he has
already made up his mind that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional,
opening the gate for nom-Muslim judges to rule what is prohibited (haram) and what is not, which ruling
will be binding on Muslims. In effect, non-Muslim judges will be issuing fatwas
on syariah which will be binding on Muslims!
Conclusion
So far, Tommy
Thomas is better known for what he does not do or does not want to do instead
of what he does, and they are:
1. Appointing a member of the Bar to handle the Equanimity case in court.
2. Not leading the prosecution in Najib’s case and, instead, appointing a
member of the Bar for the purpose;
3. Appointing a member of the Bar to study the investigation papers in
1MDB case against Najib.
4. Refusing to provide legal advice or assistance to the Election
Commission and, it follows, other Commissions and institutions established by
the government;
5. Not intervening on behalf of the federal government in a civil suit by
Petronas against Sarawak Government over petroleum issue.
6. Not intervening in the hearing of a nine-member panel of the Federal
Court to decide on the question whether a ruling of the Syariah Advisory
Council of Bank Negara (as well as of the Securities Commission) on syariah
issues bind the court.
7. Withdrawing charges against PH MPs, State Assemblymen, former State
Assemblyman and supporters.
8. Not to further prosecute Lim Guan Eng.
However, he succeeded in persuading three members of the Bar to do
his work free of charge. We can only thank those lawyers for their sacrifice.
Would they be prepared to do the same if the accused were a PH government
minister? But, for some reasons, there might not be such a case!
09 09 2018
MINDARAKYAT
http://mindarakyat.blogspot.com/
©1439 Hakcipta Tak Terpelihara
Anda digalakkan untuk mengambil apa-apa bahan di dalam laman ini untuk tujuan penyebaran, tanpa perlu memberitahu kepada pihak kami.
IKLAN BERBAYAR :
Tiada ulasan