YOURSAY | 'Idrus should now relook at the case to ensure that justice is done.'

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

Vijay47: Going through your statement, attorney-general (AG) Idrus Harun, there seems to be many references about “being made to understand” and “being advised”, lending an air of uncertainty of facts and more than a hint of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for events that supposedly occurred in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

Remember, Idrus, not only does the buck ends with you, but it also begins with you.

As the current AG, the head of your Chambers, you would be expected to make categoric statements of facts, not bandy about ‘understanding’ and ‘being advised’. After all, the relevant files would be at hand for you to refer to documented acts.

The only point where you referred to hard facts was with reference to your predecessor’s minutes dated Nov 19, 2019, to special deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Gopal Sri Ram, where he allegedly “sought the views of the latter, and further stated that in light of the proposals outlined above, he is prepared to consider (my emphasis) the representation.”

In every other instance, it was merely your litany of “advised or understood”. You add that “(former AG Tommy) Thomas had agreed to the suggestion in principle”. How and who was this “agreement” intimated to?

If Thomas had sought Sri Ram’s views by way of a minute on Nov 19, would not the actual, and far more paramount decision, to accept the proposal be similarly recorded somewhere? Was this perhaps achieved through a phone call or a chat?

And for his part, would Sri Ram have acted without being fortified by the AG’s written instructions?

Kim Quek: In the case management on March 12, the DPP applied for an extension to April 2 to allow the newly appointed AG (appointed on March 6) to deliberate over Riza Abdul Aziz’s (photo, above) representations.

And this extension was further stretched until May 14, when prosecutor Sri Ram applied for the dismissal not amounting to acquittal (DNAA).

During this lengthy extension (two months), Idrus must have been giving a lot of thoughts over the proposed settlement before he made the final decision to go for the DNAA.

Could he now share with us his rationale for his decision, other than the supposed Thomas’ agreement “in principle”?

Idrus must do so if he wishes to defend the integrity of his sacrosanct position as chief legal adviser to the government and the prosecutor of the country.

Odysseus: This is such a lame excuse to blame it on Thomas. Even if you are told verbally that Thomas has agreed in principle, you should have discussed with Thomas to confirm what you were told.

And, as the AG, you can reject it even if Thomas has agreed to it in principle.

Now, it's time for you to take accountability for your decision. There's still time to make an amendment. Bring the accused Riza Aziz back to court. I believe you can forfeit those assets bought with illegal/dirty money.

Lionking: We would have expected the new AG to review the entire representation from the defence and make his own decision. In the end, Idrus, you are accountable.

Are we doing justice for the rakyat and will this implicate that abuse and corruption of such scale are now not a crime? Are we setting a precedent by letting others follow the same path?

Speaking The Truth: If Thomas had approved in principle, that does not mean he is approving the final offer. ‘Approved in principle’ is subject to so many conditions.

In fairness to Thomas, he should have been privy to the final deal before it was agreed to, since the AG intends to have Thomas take responsibility for that. It is very unreasonable to pass the buck to Thomas.

The new AG should have reviewed the case in its entirety, since he is now in charge. Or at least find out from Thomas what his say on the final deal is.

Since Thomas is no longer AG, the new AG takes responsibility and he has to make the decision. Apparently, the new AG has no views of his own.

Headhunter: ‘By words of mouth’, is this how the top dogs in the Justice Department work? As laypersons, we are flabbergasted by this turn of event.

If the new AG agreed with the public that there is indeed a sweetheart deal involved, he should now relook at the case to ensure that justice is done.

After all, weren't we told that this is a conditional discharge? Not doing it can only give the impression that there's hanky-panky in the deal and justice is not done because of someone pulling the strings.

LeadWithoutTitle: The argument put forward by the current AG on this high-profile case seemed to invite more scepticism on his capability of "doing justice" and inability to act properly on deciding what is just.

Your action further confirmed that there are two sets of laws in this doomed country - one for the rest of us, the other is reserved exclusively for the rich, famous and powerful.

Babylon: You bribe a police officer RM50, you go to jail. You bribe a politician RM5 million to jump ship - ‘it is for the good of the country’ - and he is further rewarded.

You steal a carton of milk for your hungry child, you go to jail. You steal billions from the rakyat, and you hire expensive lawyers who know people in high places, you get to keep half the loot and walk free.

The Fog of Life: How has it all come to this? It’s simple actually. As a nation, we have never placed core principles and unyielding integrity as the foundation of our value system. You reap what you sow.

One of the greatest financial cons the world has ever witnessed, with Malaysians as the victims, and this is all Malaysian justice has to offer. A master charade.

Related story: YOURSAY | AG should take full responsibility for cutting deal with Aziz

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.