It appears that it is only polite to pay pleasant or even pompous tribute to people in high places who go before us, in spite of their faults, frailty and failures. Out of some unknown logic, the public is expected to forgive and forget, and even make heroes of the dead who once held high office albeit with low integrity.

Death is used to exonerate leaders of their past wrongdoings. It is capitalised on to prompt public pity and pardon. It has become social grace amongst the powers-that-be, to be selective of what they say of the dead who once served in disgrace.

But what about the living who have been wronged, the 'victims' of injustices caused by people in power who are no longer? What about the dignity of the office they had once desecrated and its impact on the whole nation?

Alas, would our partaking of exaggerated and lop-sided eulogies - which are meant to create public amnesia - not cause further injustice to those who have suffered and to this country?

'Selective' prosecution

Mohtar Abdullah, a former Federal Court judge and former attorney-general (AG) has passed away. A man who was severely criticised when he was the AG, especially for practising 'selective prosecution'. He was honoured by 'selective eulogies' when he died.

They preferred to remember him as a good judge. The New Straits Times ( July 7) opined

that Mohtar was "well regarded as a judge, and considered to have been effective, efficient and fair with sound legal judgment". The chief justice echoed similar sentiments.

But practically all chose not to mention his seven years as an AG. Only the de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim said briefly that he was "an effective attorney-general and many excellent laws were legislated during his tenure" ( NST , July 7).

Asked (on his last day as the AG), how he viewed his tenure as the country's top public prosecutor and legal advisor, Mohtar had replied: "Let history be the judge." ( The Star , Dec 31,.2000).

Why then did they (including the president of the Bar Council) choose not to dwell on the history of Mohtar as an AG? Could it be that the pages of the seven-year history of the former attorney-general would not make proper nor palatable public remembrance?

Controversial history

Perhaps no one has captured so succinctly the history of the former AG than DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang, who in January 2001, when arguing that Mohtar's appointment as Federal Court judge would be a sheer mockery, also said:

" it was under his watch as attorney-general in the past seven years that the system of justice suffered its worst erosion of public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary" and when " the national and international standing of the system of justice fell so precipitately..."

In contrast to Rais' description of Mohtar's service as being "efficient". Lim pointed to the former AG's "highly controversial stewardship of the office of attorney-general...as many of the high-profile cases initiated and handled by him in the past seven years were critical to deepening the crisis of confidence in the system of justice over the lack of a just rule of law".

History will remember Mohtar's decision to clear the then lord president Hamid Omar of any impropriety - in spite of five detailed reports to the Anti-Corruption Agency by the then MP for Bukit Bintang Wee Choo Keong. He even went on and accused Wee of making false reports and threatened him with criminal proceedings.

History has on record the former AG's role in Sabah politics when he withdrew seven corruption charges against the country's leading party-hopper - Jeffrey Kitingan (who defected to BN) - midway through the trial - without offering any reasons; and when he withdrew the Police Act charge of unlawful assembly against Yong Teck Lee.

Asiaweek would comment: "The attorney-general has a knack for attracting flak" and has "already caused more controversy than most dignitaries do in a lifetime...There have been calls for his resignation and a bid to cite him for contempt. The opposition wants a debate on his constitutional powers. He has been severely criticised in Parliament."

The early pages of Mohtar's tenure as AG has even Ruhanie Ahmad, the then chairperson of the Backbenchers' Club, saying: "Ever since his appointment, the attorney-general has been talking too much and at times like an unstable politician." ( The Star , March 28, 1996).

Guan Eng's conviction

Perhaps no episode in his seven-year history as AG had so reinforced and given further credence to the widespread public perception of Mohtar having practised selective prosecution than the 'persecution', conviction and imprisonment of Lim Guan Eng

As a consequence of the sentence he had received, Lim was automatically barred as a MP up to a decade. Mohtar had bent over backwards to please the prime minister who reportedly had been furious with Lim for pursuing the case against Rahim Tamby Cik - the premier's stalwart. Lim summed up the whole episode quite well: "It shows the AG's vindictiveness".

Whilst Guan Eng and Irene Fernandez had to face the wrath of the law for allegedly printing "false information", former High Court Judge Syed Idid got scot-free - in spite of having written a 33-page poison pen letter, which Mohtar himself had described as "highly seditious, defamatory, derisive" of the judiciary.

History will also remember how Mohtar had in May 1999 threatened that anyone accusing the AG's office of practising selective prosecution can be hauled up under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code for criminal defamation ( The Star , My 12, 1999).

It caused then president of the Bar Council R R Chelvarajah, to remark in a statement that Mohtar "shows a lack of respect or understanding of the concept of democracy and the rule of law" .

Mohtar's announcement in November 2000 that his chambers has decided there was no case against then chief justice Eusoff Chin over the latter's alleged misconduct had baffled even the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy.

Allegations of misconduct were made against Eusoff after a photograph was posted on the Internet showing him with prominent local lawyer VK Lingam when they were holidaying in New Zealand. Lingam is the lawyer for local tycoon Vincent Tan in an appeal case heard before a panel headed by Eusoff.

Param said the AG should not have confined his investigations into the alleged misconduct of Eusoff Chin only based on photographs taken . He said that what could amount to misconduct was the fact that Eusoff sat and adjudicated in some of the appeals and applications in which Lingam appeared in since the holiday.

Param also pointed out that even Mohtar was not an impartial party to conduct the investigations as he himself had allegedly been seen in a holiday photograph with Lingam and his client. The photo was supposedly taken in Spain.

The then AG should have "as a public prosecutor, kept out of investigations when he knows or ought to know that he cannot be impartial or be perceived to be so. Conflict of interest is apparent".

(Mohtar did not and dared not prosecute Raphael Pura a journalist from the Asian Wall Street Journal , although he had alleged in a sworn affidavit that part of a judgment delivered in a defamation suit was in fact drafted by lawyer VK Lingam appearing in the suit concerned.)

Anwar's case

The tragic-comedy history of Mohtar Abdullah continued when he charged lawyer Karpal Singh for sedition over remarks the latter had made in court while defending former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. (The charge was later withdrawn when Abdul Gani Patail became the AG.)

The open pages of Mohtar's history contain Anwar's police reports (supported and substantiated with documents from Mohtar's chambers) which show clearly that the former AG had interfered with the course of justice and had failed in his constitutional duty to prosecute Rahim Tamby Cik and Rafidah Aziz for corruption although the ACA and the AG's chambers were satisfied that there were sufficient evidence for prosecution.

The public is all too familiar with the circus displayed by Mohtar and his prosecution team in the corruption and sodomy trials Anwar. Suffice to mention, they had from time to time the assistance of Justice Augustine Paul (in the corruption trial) - a very 'relevant' observation made by the Federal Court.

One would only have to read his statutory declaration to share lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillion's

shock on discovering how the AG chambers under Mohtar could resort to "blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability" and "descend to such levels in the creation and collection of evidence".

Manjit's concluding plea to Mohtar reverberates till this day: "How far into your chambers the corruption has spread I cannot say but that you will have to stop it goes without saying."

Let there be no mistake in the history books - as an attorney-general, Mohtar had exercised the power and discretion (vested upon him) to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings, arbitrarily and capriciously.

He had allowed the attorney-general's to be used as a political tool. He had made it to the executive branch of the government. Sadly, there were times as an AG, he was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency nor a sense of shame.

May God have mercy on him and may he rest in peace. May God have mercy on this nation too that history may not repeat itself in the chambers of the attorney-general.

Martin Jalleh is a writer and researcher in a non-government organisation. Not affiliated to any political party, he believes that every Malaysian should care enough for his/her country by speaking up and standing up for the truth.