KUALA LUMPUR, June 18 — Demands by Muslim groups to charge Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail under Islamic laws for his decision in the Selangor bibles row would never amount to anything as he had merely discharged his duty as the Attorney-General (AG), a post that professes no religion, lawyers said.

On Monday, nearly 100 Muslim NGOs said the AG must either resign or face the courts for allegedly committing an Islamic offence when he decided not to press charges against a Christian group that owned hundreds of bibles containing the word “Allah” or the Arabic word for God.

Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan said the Muslim NGOs were “wrong” to call for the AG to “step down for ‘betraying Islam’” and have “absolutely no reason to question his faith in not prosecuting” the seized bibles’ owners, the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM).

“Rightly or wrongly, the AG exercised his discretion as provided for under the Federal Constitution.

“His public office means that he must act impartially without regard of his own personal faith and beliefs. The office of the AG profess no religion, even if Tan Sri Gani Patail does,” he told the Malay Mail Online.

“As for charging the AG under those Shariah offences, well, those NGOs should know better [that] a public officer exercising a public function would have a defence to such charges,” Syahredzan said, concluding that he could not “see how this decision not to prosecute would run foul of the Enactment”.

The Muslim NGOs had said that the AG could be charged either under Section 7 or Section 13 of the Selangor Shariah Criminal Offences Enactment 1995 — which prohibits any doctrine or acts contrary to Islamic laws; and which outlaws any opinions contrary to a fatwa or religious edict respectively.

But civil rights lawyer Nizam Bashir agreed that Abdul Gani, who had acted in his capacity as the AG, could not be charged under this enactment, as it is a Shariah law, which can only apply to Muslims.

“So that means this particular enactment cannot apply to the AG because it is an official post, not an individual in his personal capacity,” said Nizam, who is also a Sharie lawyer.

Citing the Federal Constitution’s Ninth Schedule List II, Nizam said the country’s highest law states that the shariah courts only have jurisdiction over “persons professing the religion of Islam”.

Explaining that shariah courts only have jurisdiction over “individuals and not officers acting in their official capacity”, Nizam said the AG as an official post without religion cannot be charged in the Islamic courts.

Syarie lawyer Ab Kadir Ismail agreed it was unlikely that the AG could be charged, pointing out Abdul Gani had given his statement while discharging his official duties.

“He’s working in his official capacity. He’s acting for national interest, meaning that he’s not acting out of personal feelings or personal opinion,” he told the Malay Mail Online when contacted, adding that the AG would typically have made his statement together with a committee.

But Nizam and Ab Kadir said that the AG could still be sued or charged in specific situations, with the former saying that the government lawyer would not enjoy immunity from legal action when carrying out his official duties if he did not act in “good faith”.

“In other words, the Attorney-General’s legal immunity is not absolute and those immunities subsist only to the extent that the Attorney-General exercises his powers in good faith,” Nizam said, citing High Court judicial commissioner Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera’s recent ruling in lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s lawsuit against the AG and 11 others.

“If the Attorney-General makes an intentional or malicious error, the Attorney-General is not immune from being sued in a civil suit or from being prosecuted in criminal proceedings,” Nizam added.

When elaborating on possible scenarios where the AG may face legal action, Ab Kadir also said: “They can sue provided they can prove to the court that the AG has committed an act of misconduct or breach of trust, or misused his powers for personal gain.”

Last Wednesday, the AG said no charges would be made against the BSM over the 321 bibles seized by Selangor’s religious authorities, pointing out that they were not “controlled items” and it was not a national security issue.

He said the state’s Islamic authorities would take the “next step” in accordance with the law, but did not elaborate or give an order on the bibles’ release.

The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) are now seeking a court ruling, which will enable them to dispose of the bibles that the latter had seized in a surprise raid on January 2.

Last week, Mais insisted that there are grounds to “prosecute” BSM under the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988.

The Selangor religious bodies had also refused to comply with the Selangor state government’s recent directive to return the seized bibles to BSM, but the state’s Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is expected to meet the Sultan of Selangor today to finally resolve the issue.