Rahman defends AG on RM2.6b donation case

(FMT) – Attorney-General (AG) Apandi Ali has been painted in a negative light by members of the Opposition over his decision to clear Prime Minister Najib Razak of any wrongdoing in the RM2.6 billion donation controversy.

Umno Supreme Council member Abdul Rahman Dahlan said this today, when he defended the AG’s decision and lamented that Apandi was now viewed negatively by the people due to the hate campaign launched by the Opposition.

“The AG did not make his decision alone. He has a team of very senior lawyers in the AG’s Chambers who deliberate upon and articulate points based on the information provided by the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission).

“So it’s a collective decision. Of course it (the AG’s Chambers) is under the AG, but he does not run the place or look at the files and decide alone,” he told a press conference today.

“The problem with some people is that their perception of the AG is already too negative, but they have to realise that there is a reason why such power (to decide whether or not a case should be taken to court) is conferred on the AG.”

Rahman was commenting on the aggressive attacks on Najib by, among others, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno Deputy President Muhyiddin Yassin, who have repeatedly accused the prime minister of corruption in regard to the RM2.6 billion donation and RM42 million from SRC International that found its way into his personal accounts in 2013.

Rahman said he was uncertain about what kind of closure Dr Mahathir was looking for, but that as far as the government and Umno was concerned, the matter was resolved once the AG made public his decision.

When asked about the request made by MACC’s Operations Review Panel (ORP) to have probes on the twin mega scandals continued, he said the panel was entitled to its own opinion.

Rahman also drew parallels to the Appeals Court, saying that a unanimous decision was hardly ever reached among those on the panel comprising of five senior judges.

“You might have three agreeing (to a decision) and two disagreeing. What does that tell you? It’s the interpretation of these people, right? But they are looking at the same case and the same facts presented to all of them.

“And although two disagree, the system states that the majority wins. It’s the same with our Federal Constitution which provides the AG with the power to make the final decision.”

He said the situation was the same in almost all other Commonwealth countries.