The Minister in charge of parliamentary affairs Dato Azalina Othman had on Saturday released a statement on what she believes to be a high level conspiracy against the Prime Minister. Here are 11 questions that I have to the 11 points the minister had raised.
- Why was the word proof put in inverted commas?
- How is the Attorney General debriefing the then-Deputy Prime Minister on an ongoing case an admission of an high-level conspiracy to topple the Prime Minister?
- Why would it be wrong for a sitting AG to debrief the then-DPM? Also, how is it unethical? Seeing that this was a high profile case involving the PM (the most powerful person in the government), it was well within the rights of the AG to debrief the DPM (the second most powerful person in the government) on the ongoing investigation as any decision made (including to prosecute the PM) would require some level of coordination as it could have political, economical and social repercussions including crippling the government. Also, why are proof or evidence of an alleged crime protected under the Official Secrets Act?
- Does the AG, Police, Bank Negara, MACC have to call for a PC every time they want to launch an investigation and inform everyone? Isn’t there such a thing as Intelligence gathering and evidence gathering prior to an official investigation being launched?
- If these sensational allegations against the Prime Minister published by the Wall Street Journal are false, why hasn’t the Prime Minister sued the WSJ?
- If this is the standard around the world, why is there a need to have the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015?
- Is the charge sheet real or fake? The current AG and the IGP seems to believe that the leaked charge sheet is a fake.
- Wouldn’t anyone in their right mind question the credibility of the current AG as his appointment to the position was made under very suspicious circumstances?
- Does the AG really have the power to stop an ongoing investigation? The Federal constitution states that “The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence…” The key word here being proceedings. While he can choose not to prosecute a person, he doesn’t have the power to stop an investigation.
- How is the ex-DPM in breach of the Official Secrets Act? He has yet to reveal any information or proof that is classified as an Official Secret. Also, If I were to agree with your claim of a conspiracy, could we also then infer that the removal of the AG, the sacking of the the then-DPM, the transfer of the special branch officer, the arrest, transfer and harassment of MACC official be construed as a conspiracy to save a guilty Prime Minister?
- Being a lawyer, shouldn’t you have a better understanding of the law? Why would the ex-DPM have to report the alleged criminal act if the then-AG and the authorities were already aware of, investigating and building a case?