KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 — Attorney-General Tommy Thomas today expressed disappointment at not being able to engage with the four academics when they advised the Malay rulers against the Rome Statute.
He told a forum here that he and the academics had apparently briefed the Conference of Rulers separately on April 2, just days before the government decided to withdraw from the international treaty.
Thomas effectively confirmed he was the sole representative from the Attorney-General’s Chambers to explain the legal aspects of the treaty.
“The fact is I spent 45 minutes explaining the legal position to the informal session of Conference of Rulers, and the minister of foreign affairs joined me and he had political aspects about it,” he said.
Thomas said he was unaware that the four academics would also separately brief the Malay rulers.
“I certainly did not know whether the group of four went before me or after me,” he said.
Thomas said that while he accepted that the Conference of Rulers was entitled to get as much feedback on the treaty as it wants, he wished he had a chance to debate with the academics when they made their presentation.
“Of course I accept the Conference of Rulers or anybody in Malaysia is entitled to as much legal representation as possible and to get the views of as many lawyers as possible.
“But what was disappointing was that we did not have a chance —- because I was the only lawyer representing the government — (to) debate with the four,” he said.
“I say that because what it means is if there were five of us in the room, the way the dialogue would have happened is that each of us would have commented on the other.
“And if I have heard the arguments of the other four, I would have a chance to comment on them. And likewise the professors would have a chance to comment on mine. So that opportunity did not happen in the conference,” he said.
Four individuals were reportedly called to explain the treaty, namely Foreign Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, and with Cabinet’s permission: Thomas, Chief of the Armed Forces General Tan Sri Zulkifli Zainal Abidin, and Universiti Teknologi Mara’s deputy vice-chancellor and the dean of its Faculty of Law Professor Datuk Dr Rahmat Mohamad.
Rahmat was one of the four academics who were said to have prepared a paper to the Malay rulers, with the executive summary of the paper later leaked by nine student activists.
The other three academics who drafted the paper are International Islamic University of Malaysia’s law lecturer Assoc Prof Shamrahayu Ab Aziz, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia’s (USIM) law lecturers Fareed Mohd Hassan and Hisham Hanapi.
In the document, they warned among other things that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as he is the supreme commander of the country’s armed forces.
Their arguments were roundly criticised in the forum today as being intellectually dishonest, with various legal experts clarifying that the Agong would not face such risks of prosecution due to Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy system where the King is merely the nominal supreme commander.
Universiti Malaya’s Emeritus Professor Datuk Shad Saleem Faruqi also clarified that he had not attended the informal briefing.
“Please allow me to clarify one piece of news that has been going around that was that I was present along with the AG at the meeting of the Majlis Raja-Raja.
“I’m just a law teacher, an ordinary law teacher. I don’t have the opportunity to be present in the Maljis Raja-Raja together with the Attorney-General,” he said.
Malaysia had on March 4 acceded to the Rome Statute, but Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on April 5 announced that the government was forced to withdraw its accession due to political pressure from opponents who spread unnecessary fear and confusion in public.
When asked during the forum what the Attorney-General’s office would do next regarding the Rome Statute, Thomas said his legal opinion remains unchanged.
“We have given our advice and the advice is the same throughout, whether it’s to the government or the Cabinet or the Conference of Rulers or the audience. We support Rome (Statute) for the reasons I gave, that remains the legal position,” he said.
“But the decision whether to proceed is a political decision.
“Because at the end of the day, the AG’s Chambers as an institution of 1,200 lawyers and myself as the AG, we are just legal advisers, very much like the private sector – lawyers advise but decisions are made by clients in the private sector,” he said, noting that the AG’s “clients” would then be the government of the day including the prime minister and the Cabinet.
“So it’s for them to decide on the future of Rome (Statute),” he said.
To illustrate the point that he is not involved in the decision-making, he noted for example that he himself was not aware of the decision that the Cabinet made to withdraw its accession of the Rome Statute and had only found out later.
