Not too long ago, a certain leader could brazenly transfer a huge amount of public funds into his personal bank account. So, the then attorney-general (A-G) plucked up the courage to officially stop the misappropriation with a planned indictment, collaborating with anti-corruption and banking authorities.
However, the A-G was ultimately fired, replaced with a new A-G, who declared the former leader free of all financial infractions.
Hypothetically, if there had been a "separation of powers" between the A-G and the public prosecutor (PP) at that time, would the outcome have been different? Hard to say.
The law-abiding instinct within us insists that no one is above the rule of law, including executives who act with impunity. But if the relevant law is amended, it allows the PP to leave no stone unturned in pressing charges against very powerful people, no matter what their office represents or whatever the consequences.
At the very least, this is our expectation when Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said set out the government's intent to undertake a comprehensive empirical study within a year before finalising the proposed separation of powers between the A-G and the PP.
While the broad profile of the government's intent is understood, it is, unfortunately, not yet plainly outlined. In a nutshell, could Azalina's affirmation of the "separation of powers" translate into criminalising the executive, whoever they are, if they try to intervene in or interfere with the work of a PP about to indict VVIPs?
Then, there's the definition of a "public prosecutor": can a PP be truly independent, acting by his own office while collaborating with all law enforcement agencies to press charges against perpetrators? Can the PP press charges based on investigations and recommendations by police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and other law enforcers without consulting the A-G?
In Britain, the independent Crown Prosecution Service takes on criminal cases investigated by police and other law enforcement bodies in England and Wales, making decisions free of the police and government.
In the United States, the A-G, once nominated by the president and confirmed in the post, acts independently of the executive. Even each of the 50 American states is independent of the A-G's office to prosecute whoever they desire.
Case in point: the staggering multitude of criminal indictments against their former president for corruption and treason. So, the "separation of powers" we are about to embark on is in fact revolutionary, but it is a vital cog in our democracy.
Finally, we can start the process of eliminating the "corrupt" stigma labelled on us for eons. It is the
way to go.