Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali complacency is a criminal offence in public life.

UMNO leaders and the PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang may not want answers to these questions,

No exemptions please:Double standards Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali
why Najib never admitted that he returned the money to the Saudi royal family. Lim also said that there had been speculation that Tan Sri Gani Patail could have been sacked because the A-G’s Chambers under him was preparing to charge the prime minister for corruption.

Attorney-General Mohd Apandi Ali’s explanation exonerating Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is inadequate and makes no sense, National Human Rights Society (Hakam) president Ambiga Sreenevasan said.

She urged Apandi and the MACC to disclose more details of their findings so that the public could understand how they came to decide on not to press charges against Najib.

Nobody is Above The Law, Not Even  AG Apandi or Prime Minister Najib Razak The total monies deposited in Najib’s personal bank accounts was not RM2.6 billion but RM4 billion or even more.

No exemptions please:Double standards Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali  there has to be a cost to hypocrisy.While corruption in rising Malaysia has moved with internet speed into the 21st century,. The good news, then, is that  corruption is transparently halal.  debate has illuminated the inherent tension between the political and the legal duties of the office of Attorney-General The newly minted AG Apandi’s decision is not surprising nor shocking to the public. It is well known fact that Apandi was specially appointed to clear Najib of any wrong doing.
If MACC had concluded nothing wrong …. AG would have announced it straight away isn’t it? Their explanation is always unsatisfactory …. they never explain the full scenario with all the loose ends tied up. If received RM2.6 bil and returned RM2.03 bil …. surely people will ask what happen to the difference isn’t it? And what about those in SRC who transferred the money to Najib? Why are they not arrested? Why did they transfer the money and who authorised them?.outrage  asks a question that repeatedly withers on the dry sand of evasive clichés. How long will the apartheid of two laws for the same crime continue?Great decision – legal precedent now set that by returning 80% of monies received is returned, all is forgiven. Wonder what Bank Negara was doing when funds flowed in and also flowed out  pre-approval was needed for large sums ?Received rm2.6 bil & return rm2.06 bil. What kind of transaction is this? Cleaning dirty money for commission So how could the decision of such a person not biased when it was already a calculated move put in motion by the suspect right from the beginning?

Stop depending on the MACC as it still reports to the PM. A Royal Commission of Inquiry is still the only chance that we can see any tangible results

Once again we see corruption to the core.the AG would not be divulging any information out anytime soon. There will be various of citation that would make such disclosure not allowed.
Even if it is allowed, would you still believe the report or any evidence tendered? The Alice in Wonderland  Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali , a speaker joke the 2.6 billion and question why a person who so capable in getting donation want be a PM. He should work as donation collector full time with with some  legal help from  newly minted AG Apandi’s
The centre of gravity in any Judiciary is best measured by the credibility of its Attorney-General. law is unconstitutional evince a lamentabl focused on policy outcomes rather than legal questions attorney general has a duty the validity oflaw must take to support the federal Constitution or the supremacy of federal law usually little more than self-serving sound seek political advantage by refusing bites The term was originally used to refer to any person who holds a general power of attorney to represent a principal in all matters. In the common law tradition, anyone who represents the state, especially in criminal prosecutions, is such an attorney. Although a government may designate some official as the permanent attorney general, anyone who comes to represent the state in the same way may, in the past, be referred to as such, even if only for a particular case. Today, however, in most jurisdictions the term is largely reserved as a title of the permanently appointed attorney general of the state, sovereign or other member of the royal family.

politically ambitious attorneys general has a power to defend the prime minister
A review of the A-G’s decision was necessary, Lim said, to determine whether there had been a conflict of interest and if Apandi’s decision not to prosecute the prime minister was correct based on the MACC’s investigation papers Apandi’s decision to clear Najib should now be reviewed and the best people to do this was a high level three-man committee comprising two former judges and the former A-G Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman.

 Apandi’s revelation that Datuk Seri Najib Razak had returned RM2.03 billion to the Saudi royal family just two months after the 13th general election had raised even more questions.
“Why did he accept the astronomical donation for the 13th general election campaign in the first place and why did he return RM2.03 billion in August 2013?

“What happened to the balance of RM570 million from the original sum of RM2.6 billion?” Lim questioned in a statement.

why Najib never admitted that he returned the money to the Saudi royal family. Tan Sri Gani Patail could have been sacked because the A-G’s Chambers under him was preparing to charge the prime minister for corruption. The “extraordinary circumstances” of Apandi’s appointment as A-G by Najib in July last year were reasons why the new A-G should had avoided any conflict of interest and withdrawn from any decision-making on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigations

The traditional view is that the Attorney-General, as Chief Law Officer of the Crown, When aftershocks trembled through after No charges against PM, SRC and RM2.6b cases closed with vested interest split opens up a Pandora’s box Complacency is a criminal offence in public life.

Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali is all an eyewash an unforgivable sin in his moral code: overlooking the obvious All that an official inquiry could do was place a stamp of judicial impartiality on known facts. It did not seem strange, then, that Najib appointed Mohamed Apandi Ali
There are substantive reasons why the epic struggle between Right and Left seems to have tipped in favour of the former. The Right has displayed the ability to compromise, in theory and practice, on the rim in order to protect the core. The Left has surrendered to demands of its core The public school of j has only one subject in its tutorials: Events. The big boys of Place of Jugdice have been playing truant, lulled by an imposter’s mantra.The speed with which Attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali slipped from stonewall to capitulation was bound to trigger anger in those who felt they had lost out.
has a duty to defend the judiciary and to protect judicial independence. has come under attack, notably from politicians and the media. Up to this point prime minister enjoyed a level of immunity from public criticism. However, this was not because the Court was not making politically unpopular decisions.
 the judiciary have traditionally occupied a privileged, insulated position removed from the turmoil of politics and largely immune from public criticism. The protection afforded to judges by contempt of court powers has also been suggested as a reason for the past reluctance of the media to criticise the High Court. However, attacks on the judiciary are now a predictable part of political rhetoric. The controversy that followed the High Court’s decision in Wik Peoples v Queensland,[92] for example, marked the end of the Court’s immunity from public criticism and represented the beginning of an era in which politicians have targeted the Court, and individual judges, to score political points. Indeed, attacks on the High Court by politicians have become politically necessary in order to undermine the authority of the Court’s decisions
A man came before the Prophet Muhammad and asked him for some advice. The Prophet said to him, “When you decide on some action, think of its consequences. If they are good, go ahead with it, and if they are bad, refrain from it.”
The Prophet’s words show that a prospective action should be weighed up according to the outcome it is likely to have. One should think before one acts: what will be the consequences of my action? If the prospects appear good, one may carry on with what one is intending to do, otherwise one should rethink one’s course of action.
Generally, people just take matters at their face value and rush into them without thinking. A Muslim should study matters carefully from every angle before deciding on a course of action. He should particularly take note of others’ probable reaction. Are people likely to stand in his way? If so, does he have the capability to overcome the obstacles they pose? Is he in a position to surmount all the hurdles that are likely to be strewn in his path, winning through to his final goal?
He should consider what the psychological, social and political repercussions of his actions will be. Only if he is confident that his work will have beneficial consequences should he embark on it.
In the great toss-up between perception and evidence, the former generally wins. Conventional wisdom,Why do we say “law and order” rather than “order and law”?  Simple. Law comes before order. Law defines the nature of order. Law is the difference between civilization and chaos. Law is evolutionary: the edicts of tribes, chiefs and dynasties lifted human societies from scattered peril to structured coexistence. The laws of democracy have vaulted us to the acme of social cohesion, for they eliminated arbitrary diktat and introduced collective will. The divine right of kings is dead; it has been reborn as the secular right of an elected Parliament.
Every good drama needs a few sub-plots whirling through the mainframe. The most captivating within our current political theatre is surely the joust that is odd that the government should have chosen law and order as its final alibi after some exhausting self-laceration in its search for a credible explanation for the escape of a criminal Najib
The only initiative worth taking is one that will yield positive results. If one embarks on a destructive course of action, it will be oneself that suffers. Therefore, one should steer clear of such actions, as any sensible person steers clear of destroying his own life.No charges will be brought against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak based on the investigations carried out by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Unsurprisingly, Najib sneered at.Attorney-General  who knelt before him; he could not care a damn about those funny-looking Mohamed Apandi Ali
who had dared to arrest Rosmah’s husband ‘Bail or no bail’: what was a rotten piece of paper signed in by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). worth to a lord of Wall Street? Not even the decency of silence. Najib was publicly, even proudly, contemptuous of those who did not have the courage to interrupt his freedom for a mere RM2.6b ‘There is a law  Najib had twigged on to a basic truth that the law is a malleable reality for those who are “well-connected”
.Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali said he has studied the investigation papers and was satisfied that there are no grounds for action.”Based on the facts and evidence as a whole, I, as the public prosecutor, am satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed by the prime minister in relation to the three investigation papers.
A nation that cannot uphold its law cannot preserve its order. When Najib was smuggled out to safety, the authority of Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali abandoned the responsibility of state. Excuses, evasions and lies have shifted over
Every minute in delay of the arrest of the head of a criminal syndicate provides the opportunity for their aids to destroy vital evidence and materials.If the PM is truly innocent, he wouldn’t mind being questioned officially.The PM has breached the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) through its financial dealings under 1Malaysia Development Berhad that has defrauded its citizens and has brought the country into severe debt. The PM has also failed to answer the source of RM2.6 billion in his personal bank account. Citing it as “donation” merely invites adverse inferences and negative connotations that begs for investigation as the proper means to clarification.Criminalization under the UNCAC not only covers  corruption such as bribery and the embezzlement of public funds, but also trading in influence and the concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption. Offences committed in support of corruption, including money-laundering and obstructing justice. Convention offences also deal with the problematic areas of private-sector corruption.Countries are bound by the Convention to render specific forms of mutual legal assistance in gathering and transferring evidence for use in court, to extradite offenders. Countries are also required to undertake measures which will support the tracing, freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of corruption.
The Attorney-General (AG) should get used to being tried in the court of public opinion as Malaysia being a democratic nation means the public have a right to scrutinise those in positions of authority, a veteran newsman said today.
Datuk A. Kadir Jasin also pointed out that Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali handles various high-profile cases like that of the prime minister’s RM2.6 billion donation and SRC International’s RM4 million bond, both of which involve public interest.
“As a former lawyer, politician and judge, Mohamed Apandi should be used with the public’s right to judge and decide about something or an issue.
“I am confident that he is more than used to, and understands, the propensities of the court of public opinion,” the former New Straits Times editor-in-chief said in a blog post today.
He added that so long as these cases are not tried in a court of law, they will instead be tried in the court of public opinion.
Even Malaysia’s top officials like the Inspector-General of Police, the Bank Negara Governor, and the Chief Secretary to the government should accustom themselves to public scrutiny, which, Kadir said, is par for the course.
The spotlight is now on the AG after he said on Friday that he was carefully examining investigation papers submitted by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on SRC International Sdn Bhd and the RM2.6 billion deposited in the prime minister’s accounts.
Last December 31, the MACC said it had submitted two investigation papers on SRC International to Mohamed Apandi after completing its probe and questioning over 100 witnesses.
The MACC also said then that it had submitted one investigation paper regarding the RM2.6 billion amount to the prosecutor after speaking to the donors and domestic witnesses, adding that it was still seeking evidence and documents from several financial institutions abroad.
July 3 — The Wall Street Journal and the UK-based Sarawak Report website say an investigation into 1MDB traced nearly $700 million to Prime Minister Najib Razak’s personal bank accounts from entities linked to the fund. The Wall Street Journal reports there were five deposits into Najib’s account, including the two largest transactions of $620 million and $61 million in March 2013 ahead of general elections. 1MDB says it has never given any money to Najib. His office slams the allegations as a political sabotage to “remove a democratically-elected prime minister.”
Citizen’s arrest of Najib  if general Attorney Mohamed Apandi Ali Attorney-General, appeared reluctant to press charges
July 4 —Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail confirms he received documents from an official investigation making the link between Najib and 1MDB. The documents pave the way for possible criminal charges. The special task force raids offices of three companies linked to 1MDB that were allegedly involved in the fund transfer.
July 7 — The task force says it has frozen six bank accounts but did not specify holders or the banks involved. The team also seizes documents related to 17 accounts from two banks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s