THE new drug law amendments to give judges discretion to sentence drug traffickers to life imprisonment do not adequately address the mandatory death penalty, says a PKR lawmaker.

Padang Serai MP N. Surendran, a lawyer by profession, said the amendment would give power of life or death to the attorney-general and breach separation of powers.

He said the amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat today by the government purportedly to end the mandatory death penalty, was a “great disappointment and cause for grave concern”.

“Civil society, rights groups and elected representatives have looked forward to the removal of the mandatory death penalty, which has long been promised by the government.

“But the bill does not go far enough. (It) gives the power to decide life or death to the public prosecutor and is in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Under the new provisions, the mandatory death penalty is not entirely removed,” he said in a statement.

Surendran said by virtue of the new section 39B(2A), only those who received a certificate from the public prosecutor to the effect that they were mere couriers and had assisted in disrupting drug trafficking activities, would be spared the death penalty.

The court still has no option but to sentence to death all those accused who are denied the AG’s certificate, he said.

“So, the AG and his prosecutors will effectively hold the power to decide whether an accused person faces the hangman’s noose or not.

“The bill also provides that the giving or denial of the certificate shall be at the ‘sole discretion’ of the public prosecutor. The court cannot question it,” he said.

Surendran said the bill essentially followed the Singapore model, as Section 33B(2) of Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act contained a similar provision.

He said the same section of the act applied by the Singapore courts had been tainted by controversy and miscarriages of justice.

This included the case of Malaysian K. Datchinamurthy who is now on death row in Changi prison after being denied the certificate, whereas his Singaporean co-accused was granted the certificate, he said.

“The new amendments are thus a serious trespass upon judicial authority and infringe the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.

“The act of sentencing and the type of sentence must be purely a judicial exercise, without any involvement whatsoever of the executive.

“This provision will also dangerously open up opportunities for corruption in the prosecutor’s decision making process,” he said.

Surendran said Putrajaya should have introduced an amendment that gave the power solely to the court to decide between the death sentence or life imprisonment, without involving the public prosecutor.

“It is laudable that the government has made an effort to tackle the mandatory death penalty in drug cases. However, this bill is manifestly not the answer to the problem.

“I strongly urge the government to amend the bill urgently to delete the requirement of the certificate of the public prosecutor, and to leave the decision to the judges,” he said. – November 23, 2017.