The Attorney General (AG) can file civil action for freezing, seizing and forfeiting the RM6.6b and "secret profits" as state revenue!
Picture Credit: KiniTV
OPINION . . .
The Attorney General (AG) did not recommend DNAA (discharge not amounting to acquittal). It was the AG who, for six years, did not hand over documents for Defence preparation. These documents were under the Official Secrets Act 1972.
The High Court, sooner rather than later, will replace DNAA with DNA (discharge and acquittal).
The accused can file Application for DNA based on the argument that the AG shows no sign of bringing them for Trial again since the documents under OSA'72 were not handed over after weeks, months and even years.
The AG can file civil action for freezing, seizing and forfeiting the RM6.6b and "secret profits" as state revenue.
The AG, based on forensic accounting on the money trail, probably knows who has the money. There's no proof the money was with former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and former Treasury Secretary General Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Siregar bin Abdullah.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19qxQn8vuW/
Political Persecution . . .
Chief Justice (CJ) Tun Richard Malanjum, in Farewell Address in 2019 on the rule of law, didn't mention selective prosecution and selective persecution, politically motivated prosecution, political persecution, and political prisoners.
Political prisoners are those under house arrest for political beliefs and activities.
Those whose convictions were not perfected in law for perfection in law are also political prisoners if detained, with or without house arrest.
Under the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, the manner in which the person was convicted comes first.
The case in the superior court isn't about merits but procedures, due process, and the greater emphasis on the spirit of the rule of law.
There must be full compliance on convictions so that convictions can be perfected in law for perfection in law.
There's maxim, "better to let thousand guilty men go free than hang an innocent man".
The stories in the inferior courts, on merits, aren't enough for perfecting conviction in law for perfection in law.
Discretion Beyond Discretion
Discretion beyond discretion, except in the case of hereditary rulers, can't be claimed as privilege of those on the bench as well. Yet, it happened.
The Perak case law 2009 declared that sultan, being hereditary rulers, have residual and reserve powers, and hence discretion beyond discretion.
The Federal Court, by majority opinion on 1 Sept 2020 on the Sabah Constitution, declared that the 1966 Stephen Kalong Ningkan case law in Sarawak was still good law for the states with Governor.
The Discretion of the Governor was restricted by the Constitution.
The Discretion of the sultan, as hereditary rulers, cannot be restricted by the Constitution even if restricted.
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the website cpiasia.org and the online Borneo-centric Center for Policy Analysis (CPI) Think Tank.
