FORMER presidents of the Bar today slammed the professional body for its failure to make a stand in the case of Riza Aziz, the stepson of former prime minister Najib Razak.

The lawyers disapproved of the current Bar president Salim Bashir’s “superficial” statement that avoided pressing questions bothering the public, such as whether it was right and in the public interest to withdraw serious charges against Riza because he had agreed to make partial reparation post-felony; and whether all accused in a similar position could now expect be treated likewise.

Salim had yesterday issued a statement saying the public prosecutor had discretionary powers in the matter of proffering and withdrawing charges.

The statement was today condemned for saying “nothing useful” by lawyers J. Armadas, Ng Kong Peng, Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan and Lim Chee Wee, the last five of whom are formerly presidents of the Bar.

“Most lawyers, and many enlightened members of the public, are fully aware that the public prosecutor has the discretion to proffer or not to proffer a charge, and also to withdraw a charge after it has been made in court,” they said in a joint statement.

“This is not where the public thirst for insight lies.

“What Malaysians want to know, and look hopefully to the Bar for guidance, is this: based on the information available, has that discretion, firstly, been properly, judiciously and fairly exercised, in the case of Riza Aziz; and, secondly, has it been seen to have been so exercised?

“Making a general statement that such a discretion must be ‘dictated by wisdom, relevant consideration and driven by facts and public interest’ is not saying much at all.

“It provides no insight into whether or not the exercise of discretion in this instance has met the required standard.”

The lawyers said Salim’s statement “curiously avoids these burning questions” which was “uncharacteristic of a Bar admired for its fierce and fearless independence”.

“The public also wants to know whether it is usual or abnormal, for a DNAA to be requested and granted, ‘subject to terms and conditions’ yet to be fulfilled by the accused.

“Is that correct in law? Should the public prosecutor just take the word of such an accused, on his honour?

“Quite apart from the issue of the impropriety of such a course of action, why couldn’t the request for DNAA be made only after all terms and conditions have been fulfilled by the accused? What is the rush?

“While the Bar president is correct in saying that the public prosecutor has the discretion to withdraw a charge (which discretion must only be exercised justly and in the public interest); he has failed to address the issue of the role of the court to scrutinise such exercise of discretion.

“That statement thus raises more troubling questions than it answers.”

The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court last week granted Riza a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from charges of laundering US$248 million via a Hollywood production house.

In return, the federal government will receive a “substantial sum running into several million ringgit” from the accused. – May 19, 2020.