Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman believes that controversial decisions made during his 13-year tenure as attorney-general (AG) were justifiable.

During an exclusive interview with malaysiakini on Tuesday, Abu Talib, 69, said he does not regret any of those decisions.

"I have not regretted any decision I made because the decisions I made were relevant and necessary, in my view, at the time. The decisions made, the majority were contested in court, but the courts agreed with me, so... so what?

"I had a very tough time during my (tenure). Definitely. The constitutional crisis... the political crisis... I thank God for showing me the light," added Abu Talib who's AG term lasted from 1980 to 1993.

Abu Talib had also argued that the problems in the current judiciary, such as the denial of justice to the accused who are languishing in death row and unable to appeal decisions because certain judges delay producing written judgments, lies in the hands of Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Based on 'applicable law'

Yesterday, former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy shot back claiming that much of the judiciary's problems stemmed from Abu Talib's past actions.

He said Abu Talib's role in the sacking of then Lord President Salleh Abbas and the subsequent removal of two senior judges, a series of incidents better known as the 1988 judicial crisis, had led to the eroding of powers in the judiciary.

Abu Talib conceded that many decisions he had made during his tenure as AG were controversial but defended his actions as it was done based on applicable law.

"Yes, I accept that (certain things were controversial). I drafted 121(1A) (of the Federal Constitution). I amended the ISA (Internal Security Act), which is now very controversial.

The 121(1A) was a constitutional amendment stipulating that the civil courts have no jurisdiction on matters within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts, while the ISA was amended in such a way that detainees can no longer challenge their incarceration in court.

"I defended those cases, I defended the case in court with regards to the constitutionality of the death sentence. I went to the highest court based on applicable law," he said.

Asked about the "true facts" of the 1988 judicial crisis, Abu Talib laughed off the question and said that it was the subject for a separate interview.

"(Back then) I appeared for and on behalf of the government, the state," he stressed, but denied political pressure led to the controversial decisions made.

Nevertheless, he admitted that his statements today are quite different, such as issues involving human rights.

Taking the ISA as an example, Abu Talib said Suhakam's position now was that there were insufficient safeguards in the law and that the government should review it.

Destroying evidences

To another question, Abu Talib said the order for the police to destroy evidence - both videotapes and photographs - implicating a former top MIC politician in a 1992 sex scandal was done in good faith.

According to Abu Talib, his intention was to protect the dignity of the victim in the case.

"This poor girl had been exploited and humiliated. Do you want her to be further humiliated? There is such a thing as tempering justice with mercy.

"It is for that reason that I believe the constitution was drafted in a way that it gives discretionary powers to the public prosecutor to charge or not to charge," he said.

He denied that there was any pressure from the any quarters including the government and the MIC for him to do so.

"In fact, I was asked by (then) prime minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad) as to why I did it... those days, you cannot escape the eyes of the prime minister... there was no pressure. He has his views and I had to explain," he added.

Q&A: Why the sex tape was destroyed

Tomorrow: His views on the current AG and the police