Skip to content

AG won’t err?

16/03/2016

 

FB_IMG_1444371197965

Let’s the Court decide.

Can the Bar challenge the AG?

The Attorney General (AG) is supposed to be the guardian of the rule of law”.

“Some say this position is probably the most powerful one in Malaysia. However, whether that is true or not is a different question. Currently, he indeed has the [absolute] power to decide whether to institute any criminal proceedings in the court of law. Similarly he decides whether to discontinue a case after one is charged in court.”

AG’s power is conferred to him by Article 145 of the Federal Constitution. Whoever holds this position is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister.  He holds the role as the Chief Adviser to the Government as well as the a Public Prosecutor. He has the duty to advise the government of the day and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on any legal matter.

The AG’s prosecutorial discretion has not been strictly challenged in our local courts, though on numerous occasions legal issues related to a person’s constitutional rights were raised against AG’s discretion but never with success.

Now the questions I want to put forward are how should the AG exercise his sole and wide discretionary power given in Article 145 (3) ?  What if his discretion is wrongly exercised, can it be challenged in court?

Nothing whatsoever is expressly stated in Article 145 that the AG discretion is not subject to judicial scrutiny or review.

In the case of Datuk Seri Samy Vellu v  S Nadarajah [2000], the Court held that Article 145 (3) does not confer a monopoly of power on the AG.

In Singapore, the Court of Appeal decided in Ramalingam Ravinthran v The Attorney General  [2001], that the AG discretionary powers are not immune to judicial review if they are shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or in breach of a person’s constitutional rights.

Last month, Zaid Ibrahim and Khairuddin have also filed in a similar legal challenge against the AG.

The court should shed some light on this issue in order to improve public perspective of the administration of justice in our country. Or perhaps there is a need to amend the Constitution at the Parliament.

让法院决定
律师公会是否能挑战总检察长?

民青团署理团长杨锦成指出,总检察长应是法治的捍卫者。

“有人说该职位在马来西亚是最有权力的。然而,这是否属实仍另当别论。目前他确实有绝对权力作出刑事起诉。同样的,他也能决定在嫌犯被控上法庭后,是否要终止案件。”

总检察长的权力是在联邦宪法第145条文下所赋予的,也是最高元首在首相的建议下所委任的。他不但扮演着政府首席顾问的角色,同时也是一名检察官。他有责任在所有法律事务上,给予时任政府和最高元首建议。

总检察长的检控权一直都没有遭到我国法院的严格挑战。尽管曾在很多有关个人宪法权力的法律课题上,挑战总检察长的检控权,但却从未成功。

“现在我想提出的问题是,检察长如何行使第145(3)条文赋予其唯一和充分的检控权?若他错误行使检控权,是否可以在法庭接受挑战?”杨锦成问。

“第145条文并没有阐明总检察长的检控权不受司法审查或检讨,”杨锦成补充。

在2000年拿督斯里三美威鲁和纳达兰查的案件中,法庭认为第145(3)条文并没赋予总检察长绝对权力。

2001年,在新加坡的Ramalingam Ravinthran和总检察长的案件中,该国的上诉庭裁决若总检察长任意行使或违反某个人的宪法权力,那他的检控权不能幸免于司法审查。

几个月前,再益依布拉欣也对总检察长作出类似的法律挑战。

杨锦成认为,或许法庭应一劳永逸地明朗化该课题,以改善民众对我国司法的印象。

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: