THE separation of powers principle must be applied to the Attorney-General’s (AG) office to avoid conflict of interest and perception of political persecution, said constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan today.

Syahredzan said there were three key changes that needed to be made to effect check and balance, beginning with the incontestability of the AG’s decisions.

Syahredzan suggested that the court be allowed to review the decisions of the AG.

For example, he said, on the matter of alleged financial misconduct in 1Malaysian Development Bhd, there were parties who had brought the case to court, only to be told there was no case because the AG had decided not to prosecute.

He recommended that Article 145 in the Federal Constitution be amended so that the courts had the authority to review the AG’s decisions.

“So when there is a prosecution that is politically motivated, the courts can play a role to check the prosecution,” he said at the forum,  Political Persecution in Kuala Lumpur tonight.

Article 145 in the Federal Constitution defines the role of the AG and states that the AG has the absolute power of court prosecutions.

Secondly, Syahredzan said, the attorney general’s roles as adviser to the government and the public prosecutor should be separated to avoid conflict of interest.

“In the UK it is the crown prosecution service that decides on the prosecution and it is led by the director of public prosecutions, but the UK AG only has oversight on the crown prosecution service, and has no power to be involved in prosecutions.

“Once the roles are separated, we won’t have cases of the prime minister saying that he had been advised by the AG not to  comment on 1MDB matters, and it is up to the AG to decide whether there is a case in 1MDB. Already we can see there is a conflict here.

Lastly, said Syahredzan, the AG must have “security of tenure” to forestall the avoid the AG acting solely in the interests of the prime minister.

“Security of tenure must be given to the AG. Right now the AG doesn’t have it, as in the case of Abdul Gani Patail who lost his post in a morning.

“So he doesn’t have security of tenure and when someone doesn’t have this, there is a possibility that the person would try to secure his position by trying not to enrage his employer that will cause him to lose his job.

“To remove a judge from the post, one has to go through a tribunal. We can do the same for the AG. – October 11, 2017.