KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 ― Despite a suggestion that it take over the role of prosecutor to haul controversial politician Datuk Ibrahim Ali to court for his bible-burning call, the Bar Council said it is not in a position to carry out such action.
Its chief Christopher Leong clarified with Malay Mail Online that no organisation can act on any fiat from the Attorney-General (AG) for non-government lawyers to act on his behalf in court, adding that the authority can only be granted to an individual.
“It would not be the function of the Bar Council as an organisation to undertake any criminal prosecution. Any fiat to be issued by the AG would be to an individual lawyer,” he said in a text message when contacted yesterday.
Leong added that such authorisation of private lawyers to conduct criminal proceedings would only be granted when the AG himself felt that charges should be pressed.
“Fiats are only issued in cases where the AG as the Public Prosecutor wish to commence prosecution but is either constrained by time, resources or expertise.
“Hence, the PP would only issue a fiat if in the first place he is of the view that a particular matter warrants prosecution. This is because a person holding the fiat is representing and prosecuting on behalf of the PP,” he said, using the initials for public prosecutor.
He also said that only the AG can issue any fiat.
Yesterday, PKR MP Gooi Hsiao Leong called on the Bar Council to apply for a fiat from the AG to allow itself to initiate criminal proceedings against Ibrahim, adding that the AG risks being seen as lacking impartiality he does not issue the fiat.
The awarding of such a “fiat” is not new or unprecedented, Gooi said, pointing to the AG's previous appointment of private lawyer Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah to prosecute Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on behalf of the government in a criminal case involving a sodomy charge.
He also asked if the AG could have said that Ibrahim's statement was seditious if if it was clearly “intended to be an appeal to stop the propagation of a religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam as provided under Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, and not merely a call to burn Bibles” when read as a whole.
Over the past few weeks, Abdul Gani and his office has been under pressure to explain his controversial decision not to press charges against Ibrahim.
Abdul Gani also acknowledged that a sedition charge would not hinge on an individual's intention, but noted that there was also a court case saying that the alleged seditious action must be viewed in context.
In Ibrahim's case, the Perkasa leader issued the bible-burning call after a police report on the distribution of bibles to students, including Muslim students, in front of a Penang school, he said.
Abdul Gani cited Ibrahim's own clarification that he had not intended to create religious strife but had wanted to defend the sanctity of Islam, as well as his qualification that his call to burn bibles was directed at the group distributing them to students.
The government’s top lawyer also said Ibrahim had never called for the burning of “all bibles” which would be seditious, but had pointing to the edition of the bible that allegedly had Malay words with the word “Allah” and Jawi script that could “confuse”.
