YOURSAY | 'He cannot say that he rubber-stamped the deal upon advice by his predecessors…'

AG: I was advised Thomas agreed to Riza Aziz settlement 'in principle'

Ravinder: "Idrus Harun, who was appointed attorney-general (AG) on March 6, said he was further advised that (ad hoc public prosecutor in the case, Gopal) Sri Ram, in consultation with the then chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Latheefa Koya, suggested that the proposals laid down in the representation be accepted by the anti-graft body."

This is a serious implication and both Sri Ram and Latheefa must come into the open to clarify matters.

If what Idrus (photo, above) is saying is true, then he is the one who gave the directive to drop the charges against the accused Riza Aziz, as he was not bound by his predecessor's "agreement in principle". He had to make his own decision.

If he chose to adopt his predecessor's "agreement in principle", then it became his decision and he cannot shift his acceptance of that "agreement in principle" onto his predecessor.

What legal principle is Idrus relying on to claim that his acceptance of former AG Tommy Thomas' "agreement in principle" (if there really was one) is the fault of Thomas?

Gerard Lourdesamy: To "consider" does not mean to agree with the proposal. Agreeing to a "suggestion" in principle does not also amount to acceptance in law.

The fact that it is still a "suggestion" would indicate that the former AG (if he indeed intimated this to Sri Ram or Latheefa) had not yet made up his mind.

As the new AG, shouldn't Idrus have looked at the representations afresh? Shouldn't there have been a fresh round of discussions between the officers of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the MACC?

What was the rush to seal the deal so soon after the new AG took office and right after Perikatan Nasional (PN) assumed the government?

Most importantly, why was a 50 percent haircut given to Riza when, even in the US, the government would have tried to recover at least 80 percent of the proceeds from the alleged money laundering if the evidence was overwhelming?

Kural: At his level as the AG, one would think that there should have been an inexcusable professional requirement, especially given the grievousness of the charges and the notoriety of the embezzlement scandal, that he himself personally should have intervened to clarify and confirm with the former AG.

In fact, even an ordinary man in the street would argue that it was beholden on his part and a judicious requirement. “I have been advised” by some other officer seems apathetic negligence.

And the present controversy speculating on the demerits of a deal already rapped up, given the resolute rebuttal by the former AG, should be sufficient grounds to hold an independent inquiry into the conduct of the AG’s Chambers.

Multi Racial: I am extremely disappointed with Idrus. His response is akin to him not willing to take any responsibility from the discharge of the accused, Riza.

Idrus, the former AG can say whatever he likes, but at the end of the day, the final decision lies with you, being the current AG.

Since when do you place such great importance in the former AG’s position on the matter?

Hang Babeuf: A conscientious and fastidious lawyer does not proceed to implement and enforce a course of action upon the rumour or a third-party report that somebody has (supposedly) "agreed in principle" to some vague or hypothetical suggestion made under circumstances and in a context that remains totally obscure.

A completely unsatisfactory assurance, this claim. Just a very awkward admission of "mea culpa".

Anonymous_1564559828439.62651564559422806: I am surprised by the AG’s comment. Even my 10-year-old son would say that you are now in charge, so you decide.

Simple Truth: Is the AG trying to absolve himself from the responsibilities of the decision to offer a dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to Aziz?

Indeed, the former AG has resigned and what’s he had agreed upon should not have any bearing on the decision as you are now in charge and you should be the one to make the call.

NKK: Yes, I think the AG should take full responsibility and not say that he rubber-stamped the deal upon the advice of the predecessors, or whatnot.

Advice is advice, however important, but the decision is yours, dear AG.

BagusCurryPuff: If you are going to tell a lie, then you tell a really big lie and keep repeating it and eventually everyone will believe it.

This is a big one – basically, don't blame PN for this outcome as we are only carrying out what the previous government had already decided.

If Riza wanted to live out his fantasy of being a big-shot Hollywood producer, then mommy and daddy should have paid for it, not the Malaysian taxpayers.

Most people who voted for the last government would have expected that even if this involved another lengthy and costly trial, he should be tried and punished accordingly, and not let off on the promise of part payment of what was allegedly stolen.

So, what is next as the kleptocracy trials restart? More big lies? PN gamble that Malaysians have short memories and by the time we get to GE15, no one will care anymore that nobody went to jail.

Perhaps it is not even that long term - the Sheraton Move and all of the events of prior and since have all been about a group of incredibly wealthy people staying out of jail, free to enjoy the proceeds of their crimes, and the rule of law can go hang itself.

Oscar Kilo: It is not good enough to merely recover stolen assets, and letting the criminals go free.

If so, then why jail people who steal a packet of Milo or a tin of sardines to feed their hungry family? Just ask them to pay back or replace the stolen goods.

Related story: YOURSAY | Idrus lets Riza off the hook, predecessor blamed instead

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.