ACCORDING to the attorney-general (AG), there is insufficient evidence to prefer any charges against Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali for allegedly violating a quarantine order in July.

“For an act to be considered an offence of breaking a home quarantine order under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988, (a) home surveillance or observation order is required to be issued to the minister under section 15(1) of the act,” he said.

Since there was no home surveillance or observation order issued to the minister for him to observe the order, there is offence. As such, no further action against the minister.

Section 15(1) of the act states that an authorised officer may order any contact to undergo observation in such place and for such period as he may think fit, or to undergo surveillance until he may be discharged without danger to the public.

The word “contact” in the section means any person who has been or is likely to have been exposed to the risk of contracting an infectious disease, including any person arriving from an infected area.

The reference to section 15(1) by the AG is significant as having returned from Turkey, Khairuddin should be a person who is likely to have been exposed to the risk of contracting Covid-19 – an infectious disease, and therefore a contact. 

Based on the standard operating procedure (SOP) applicable on the date he returned to Malaysia, an authorised person should order Khairuddin to undergo observation or surveillance.

An “authorised officer” means any medical officer of health, any health inspector, or any officer appointed by the health minister under Section 3 of the act, which states that the health minister may appoint any suitable person to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the act.

As an appointee of the health minister, an authorised person is accountable to the minister. Ministers are accountable to the people.

But the health minister has yet to explain to the people why Khairuddin was not ordered by an authorised officer to undergo observation or surveillance.

It is opportune time to recall the very recent case of Tony Pua Kiam Wee v government of Malaysia where the Federal Court held that the prime minister and ministers “are no less holders of public office in the context of misfeasance in public office. They derive their salary from the public purse and carry out their functions with a public purpose.”

The Federal Court also held that the prime minister or any minister is a public officer within Section 5 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.

As such ministers – including a prime minister – can be sued for misfeasance in public office, and the government can be held vicariously liable for any wrongdoing ministers committed.

There is now no further action against Khairuddin, but there may well be a cause of action against his fellow minister and vicariously, the government.

Ministers are public officers and can be sued for misfeasance in public office. – October 22, 2020.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.