The attorney-general, or civil servants in general, must not be automatically construed as supporters of the government of the day, said Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) chairperson Abu Talib Othman.

Abu Talib, who served as attorney-general from 1981 to 1993, said this when asked if the AG's Chambers was under pressure from the Prime Minister's Department which it reports to.

Below is the second of a three-part excerpt of the exclusive interview with malaysiakini.

Malaysiakini: There are criticisms on bad prosecution and police investigation process allowing many cases to be thrown out. Your views?

Abu Talib: Maybe there are more problems now since when I was the AG. Maybe it's because they have more officers now. They have two solicitor-generals which we never had before. Now the AG has announced about the website. Maybe it's a way forward.

(On Aug 19, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail announced that public prosecutors would post short reports of cases won or lost on the AG Chambers' website).

But at the end of the day, people wants results. We want good prosecution (work). We want a fair prosecution. We don't accept when he (Abdul Gani) said there are certain cases where he takes risks. To me, we take risk in amounts in prosecution. How can one go to court and hope for a 50-50 (chance of winning).

During my time, I introduced a 90-percent rule, which it would appear from his (Abdul Gani's) last (interview with the New Straits Times) that he still adopts this. So I think I'm right in introducing the rule. But towards the end (of the interview), he said that there are certain cases where he takes risks. I don't think (this is right).

His argument was that there are certain cases where the public would want the prosecution to act.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who wants it. It's a matter of whether you have evidence. You only prosecute a person if the person clearly committed a criminal offence. What the public perceive and want are not relevant.

Don't you think that there is public perception that certain cases are not being pursued because...

Then where is the question of the interest of the accused? There is public interest. There must also be the interest of the accused. It's not fair that you prosecute me just because the public thinks I"m guilty. Then what is the purpose of having a court?

It would be a dangerous trend if the prosecution is based on what the public and the politicians want. I have not done it. Do you think the government was happy when I prosecuted a minister for murder? I went through with it because I decided that in cases of such public importance, it was tricky and difficult, I prosecuted it myself. I would not ask my deputies to do it.

But do you accept the fact that there are pressures from the government since the AG's Chambers is directly under the PM?

I don't think so. If you are an AG or a civil servant you must become an advisor. An advisor is not a supporter. So, where it is wrong, you correct it. I was a civil servant. During my time you see many things happen.

Do you think that the AG should report directly to Parliament instead of the Prime Minister's Department?

That is a matter of policy. Even if the AG does not answer to Parliament, Parliament can still raise questions. The minister concerned will then have to answer the questions.

The AG is responsible to a minister administratively, not in the exercising of his power as a public prosecutor. Such powers are vested in him and he exercises the powers at his absolute discretion.

Is the (present AG's) website idea do-able?

Give him a chance to implement his policies and let's see if that is a way of enhancing the performance in the chambers. Most government websites go 'kaput' halfway. But let's give him a chance.

But I think this is an added responsibility on the officers. To prosecute for one whole day in court can be very tedious and one has to come back tomorrow before the courts.

It would be okay if the court says (be present by) 9am and the court sits by 9am. In most cases, the courts don't sit at 9am.

There was an occasion, where the court asked us to appear at 9.30am. I appeared at 9am. The judges did come out at 9.30am. I told the court (officers) to tell the judges 'We're all ready to commence!'.

I was happy to see them came out. They were unhappy, but I think they are reasonable people. While they expect us to be punctual, they should reciprocate that courtesy.

Suhakam has given a lot of input on the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission) to the AG's Chambers, to assist the police reform process...

We submitted our memorandum (to the prime minister) and made several recommendations. One of which was the setting up of the IPCMC.

Secondly was amendments to remand procedures. We also recommended that the courts examine such applications carefully. There should be reasonable grounds before they grant a detention under Section 117 of the Penal Code, not at the asking of the police.

But the IPCMC...

I believe the prime minister announced that it would be implemented and (the bill) is with the AG now. You can ask the AG, 'what happened?' We have recommended that the commission be set up... there is a need for it.

What is your position now, given that the IPCMC is with the AG and it has not seen the light of day?

I cannot comment...

The proportion of complaints lodged with Suhakam against law enforcers appear to have reduced. Do you see this as a result of a police reform process?

Let's go back to history. When Suhakam was established it was the time of (former deputy premier) Anwar (Ibrahim's sacking). There were lots of demonstrations and a lot of complaints (against the police).

But today, we receive complaints about police inaction. That is generally the main (form of) complaints. We have acted on it. (For example) death in custody, we have taken a stand where we would hold a inquiry if they don't initiate an inquest. But when they hold an inquest, there is a question of dates by the court. The court (could) postpone a case indefinitely.

I don't know what happened. Not enough judges? The government already appointed more judicial commissioners. But we still get complaints of delay. Unfortunately, we cannot call public inquiry into the affairs of judges (laughs). We (Suhakam) do not go beyond what we are required to do by the law.

Is Suhakam observing that a police reform process is currently taking place?

We have urged that the IPCMC be established. But the reply we always get is that it is still with the AG. I guess it must be very difficult to come out with it.

Maybe the government is the cause of the delay?

I cannot comment on that because I have no evidence.

Please comment on the impending Rela (Ikatan RELAwan Rakyat) bill.

On Rela, we have expressed our views on their conduct. In fact, we arranged for a dialogue with Rela on what they can and cannot do. That far we have done.

But if they continue to do, I think there is enough powers in the police to investigate the actions of (errant) Rela (personnel) - whether they act within the law or whether not they have committed a criminal offence. It's entirely up to the police and the AG's Chambers to consider (taking action).

There is speculation that Rela would be given even more powers with the new bill. What is your stand on it?

No legal power is without limits. If legal power has no limits, it's dictatorship. There must be limits. Everybody wants power and never wants to give up power. But I think it all depends on how the law is drafted and the policy of the government.

What was the outcome of the dialogue with Rela?

We can only advise them. If they accept our advice, then it's good. If they don't accept our advice, we have discharged our function in promoting the protection of human rights.

The response was very good. But so far, there is no more (reported cases) of (beatings) by Rela (members).

Given that we have immigration and other enforcement agencies, do you still think we need Rela?

These are issues that concern (national) security and maintenance of law and order. The internal security and home affairs ministries are the best judges. I cannot comment. Whether there is justification or not, they are the best judges.

Legally, our country is in the state of emergency. There are overlapping proclamations of emergency. So it's totally not correct to say that we're not under the state of emergency. (Emergency laws) have not been totally lifted.

The question is that we have gone back to parliamentary democracy. The laws are passed by Parliament and not through emergency ordinances passed by cabinet through the Agong.

Some of the emergency ordinances have been repealed. If you say that some of the laws are not fair, particularly the ISA (Internal Security Act), countries around the world would appear to have similar laws. America, UK, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia ... in view of the lingering international threat of terrorism.


AG ticked off for 'taking risk'

Part 1
Abu Talib: Regrets I've none
Q&A: Why the sex tape was destroyed