Here’s my two tight slaps to Malaysiakini and Khairuddin Abu Hassan over the civil suit by the US Justice Department
The Third Force
Ever since the US Justice Department came out to file a civil suit against an American production company, some of my friends on Facebook and others have been drowning me with insults for having defended our Prime Minister against allegations that were piled on him since last year.
Some others were quick to share posts from Malaysiakini that ran editorial after editorial highlighting that money from 1MDB was stolen, while others – lawyers by qualification – surprised me when even they seemed incompetent, unable to decipher the core nature of the suit that the US Justice Department had filed against Red Granite Pictures.
It is going to take more than one article for me to educate you guys on what is really going on. So, today, my focus is on an incident that took place last year, where one of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s many minions had attempted to subvert democracy with treasonous acts that were against the interests of National Security. We will then attempt to see how this relates to the suit that had been filed against Red Granite.
Now, I’m going to try and make this as simple as I can so that everyone who is not a legal expert can follow what I am about to say:
On the 13th of April earlier this year, the High Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters pertaining to the appointment of the Attorney General (AG) of Malaysia. What this means, in very elaborate terms, is that the High Court had reaffirmed what was already stipulated by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which is, the appointment of the AG is the express decision of the yang di-Pertuan Agong, as it is based on advice delivered to the King by the Prime Minister.
The Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the nation, is perfectly clear on the matter. However, the federal charter also states that a sitting AG may not easily be removed from office by the King if his or her appointment was made before laws governing the appointment came into effect. That’s putting it in very simple terms for you guys.
But a certain man by the name of Khairuddin Abu Hassan contended that the relevant law subscribing terms to the termination of the AG had been violated by Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak. Khairuddin argued that the dismissal of the former AG, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, went beyond the bounds of law as it clearly contravened clause 6 of Article 145.
Now, for those of you who don’t already know this, Article 145(6) reads that The person holding the office of Attorney General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.
In other words, and like I have already stated, a sitting AG may not easily be removed from office by the King if his or her appointment was made before laws governing the appointment came into effect.
However, the only person who occupied the position of the Attorney General in 1960, which is when the law came into effect, and remained there until 1963, was Cecil M Sheridan. Gani assumed the AG’s office in 2002, meaning, the part of Clause 6 which I had underlined above did not apply to him. Now this is very clear, and is probably even clearer that the nose that is on my face.
Thus, the appointment or dismissal of Gani was solely the King’s decision as it was based on advice delivered to His Majesty by the Prime Minister. Put differently, Gani’s appointment was subject to Clauses numbered 1 and 5 of Article 145 of the Constitution, which you can read by clicking on the link below:
Moving on, Khairuddin was up to no good when he lodged reports against 1MDB in the US. What Khairuddin had done stood to jeopardise national security as a discovery exercise into 1MDB and its attendant concerns was then ongoing.
Now, the 13th of April ruling by the High Court Judicial Commissioner, Datuk Nordin Hassan, followed an application by Khairuddin to have charges that were brought against him for lodging those reports dismissed. According to the former UMNO leader, the appointment of the new AG was unconstitutional as it contravened Article 145(6) of the Federal Constitution. Khairuddin contended that since it was Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali who had brought charges against him, those charges needed to be struck out as Apandi’s actions fell short of the law.
Khairuddin implied that Apandi was brought into office hurriedly for reasons that were prejudicial and against national interests. He then attempted to incite unrest when he decried the Prime Minister publicly on more than one occasion for having ‘castrated’ those who were opposed to the latter’s leadership. Khairuddin went further to imply that the Prime Minister had acted in malice by delivering ‘wrong advice’ to the King.
Do you see how Tun Dr. Mahathir and his minions mess with your minds and the legal system? Khairuddin had clearly undermined the ruler’s credibility and had attempted to incite hatred against the institution of premiership. Not only were his actions treasonous, they were against the interests of National Security and stood in contempt of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
Khairuddin, if you are reading this and are dissatisfied with anything that I have stated, then all I can say is this – bring it on!!
Just as Khairuddin had wasted taxpayer money and legal time here by giving the High Court judge a run-around over an issue which was a clear-cut misrepresentation of the Federal Constitution, he did the same with the US justice department last year by lodging reports against 1MDB despite there being investigations that were ongoing here.
Now, the Americans have a policy. And that is, if a complaint is lodged against any government institution anywhere in the world, that complaint must be examined thoroughly pursuant to international and American laws and policies.
What more, if the complaint borders on fraudulent activity or money laundering that may involve US based institutions, it would trigger alarms within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Thus, the recent statement by the US attorney-general that was all the hype here is nothing to shout about.
The whole purpose of my narrative, however, is not to point out how or why Khairuddin had been charged, or even the reason why Apandi’s appointment was perfectly legitimate. As a matter of fact, I’ll just sum it up by saying that Apandi’s appointment was absolutely constitutional.
The purpose of this narrative is to point out to you that the whole mess concerning the civil suit that was brought against Red Granite was the doing of Khairuddin Abu Hassan, who had acted in malice, the same way he did when he filed a complaint against charges that were filed on him by Apandi. And just as in Malaysia, the case will go on until a verdict is reached.
The bottom line being, the legal suit by the US Justice Department is not a criminal suit, and neither is it a legal suit of any sort against the Prime Minister, irrespective if he was implied or otherwise. And let me make it clear if it is not already clear to you – nothing that has been implied in the suit as evidence constitutes as a judgment against anyone as long as it has not been tried in the court of law.
Yet, Malaysiakini had the cheek to run an editorial with a caption that read “US delivers a tight slap in the face to Malaysian authorities.” Earlier to that, it ran an article that related to a statement by the US attorney-general that read, “It’s official – the 1MDB money was stolen.”
Now, how could Malaysiakini have taken US attorney-general’s claims to be official when she serves only at the pleasure of the US president in matters that relate to the American legal system? Is Malaysiakini not aware of this? I mean, who do you guys in Malaysiakini subscribe to as your leader – Barack Obama?
The correct way to have captioned the article would be as follows:
“1MDB money was stolen, says US attorney-general.”
“US attorney-general statement puts 1MDB under the spotlight once again.” To be honest, even that would have been appropriate.
It has long been established that Malaysiakini is being funded by a foreign source seeking regime change in Malaysia. Read between the lines, and you will find that the portal has its weight thrown firmly behind the Anti Najib campaign (ANC) and in particular, Mahathir. Question is, is Mahathir also funding Malaysiakini these days?
You didn’t find the news portal throwing its weight behind Apandi in like manner when the AG came out to clear the Prime Minister of wrongdoing. For instance, you did not see an article that read, “It’s official – Najib is innocent.”
Neither did the portal come out with editorial after editorial explaining Nordin’s decision when he disallowed charges that were piled against Khairuddin to be thrown out. However, if the Prime Minister were to die tomorrow, and if news of his death leaked out, I’m quite sure you would see a headline by Malaysiakini that would read:
“It’s official – the Prime Minister is dead.”
Anyway, that’s just my guess.