Did the AG act impartially and without favour when he said “at no point in the civil claim filed by the US DoJ is the prime minister...alleged to have committed any criminal wrongdoing”?
Lim Wei Jiet
On 20 July, the US Department of Justice instituted a civil action to recover more than $1 billion worth of assets laundered through the US by alleged misappropriation of 1MDB funds. What caught the people’s attention was the Malaysian AG’s response to the DoJ’s complaint. Apandi Ali wasted no time to release a press statement saying:
“The attorney-general expressed his strong concerns at the insinuations and allegations that have been made against the prime minister of alleged criminal wrongdoing in relation to the civil action. The attorney-general intends to clarify that at no point in the civil claim filed by the US DoJ is the prime minister named as a defendant or has been alleged to have committed any criminal wrongdoing.”
Gobind Singh Deo was right to point out the following: “To my mind, he should not be leaping to the Prime Minister’s defence. He should maintain his independence and be open to the fact that serious allegations have been made in the suit which may lead to him having to reopen the case here at some stage”.
There is no doubt that the AG himself was leading the charge in manning the Prime Minister’s fort.
But in descending to such a role, has the AG deviated from his foremost priority – that of as the guardian of public interest?
Did the AG act impartially and without favour when he said “at no point in the civil claim filed by the US DoJ is the prime minister…alleged to have committed any criminal wrongdoing”?
Did the AG act with objectivity, ensure that all necessary enquiries were made and was guided by the search for the truth when he stated, point blank, that he “expressed his strong concerns at the insinuations and allegations that have been made against the prime minister”?
To be fair to the AG, he did say he would cooperate with the DoJ and would not hesitate to prosecute should there be sufficient evidence. But against such defensive posture to shield the dear Prime Minister, can the public expect that he would assess the evidence from the DoJ bona fide?
Read More / Baca Lagi >>