It is hardly a great surprise to have Rais Yatim making a statement in Parliament on behalf of the government that "the evidence did not fulfil the standard of proof" to bring International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz and former Melaka chief minister, Rahim Thamby Chik to book.

This official stand is inconsistent with the views of Abdul Gani Patail who in his capacity as public prosecutor in 1995 had indicated that there is prima facie basis to prosecute the two for corruption.

This inconsistency has to be investigated. The Attorney-General's decision not to prosecute, as so alleged by Rais, must be scrutinised by a third and independent body. Any discretion must as a rule be exercised judiciously.

The AG is unfortunately not made accountable to Parliament under the Constitution and our present laws. This however does not mean that the AG is under the domain of any ministry which then puts Rais' position in speaking for the office of the AG a little suspect. Rais speaks for the government and not technically the office of the AG.

Who then can srutinise the office and decisions of the AG? This must then fall on the judiciary.

Admittedly we have had really lousy precedents on the AG's exercise of his discretion under the Constitution. This was happening long before the 1988 debacle. The judiciary has also limited the right of any person to take up public interest litigation cases.

When Lim Kit Siang tried to open this up in the United Engineers' case, the judiciary threw it out. This was also decided by allegedly independent judges (who nevertheless were the same judges affected by the 1988 assault on the judiciary affair).

Still lawyers and human rights defenders must find ways legally and politically to challenge any decision that reeks of mala fide or bad faith. Our democracy depends on it.