During the premiership of Anwar Ibrahim - Dusuki is the 3rd Public Prosecutor (highest rate of change of prosecutors). Now the PM has the power to appoint and remove a Public Prosecutor at any time and that is a PROBLEM - PP then may be threatened to do as PM wants, OR ELSE - that is why we need SECURITY FOR TENURE (until retirement age), and the removal of the Public Prosecutor must be made to be as difficult as it is to remove a Judge.
Many Malaysians are concerned that Public Prosecutors may not be INDEPENDENT - and may be using or abusing their powers to appease the PM or Government - the DNAA of Zahid, the sudden unnecessary NFA announcement that led to Zahid now applying for an acquittal, the withdrawal of the appeal against acquittal of Zahid, the charging of GISBH under SOSMA, etc - TIME to enact laws that allows prosecutor's action to be subject to Judicial Review, etc - so Courts can determine whether Public Prosecutor did wrong or not..
Second, the court may review the exercise of prosecutorial power to determine whether it has contravened constitutional rights. Consider a situation where X and Y were both caught by the police with 5 kg of cocaine prohibited under the Misuse of Drugs Act; however, the Prosecution chooses to charge X with a capital offence which attracts the death penalty (say, trafficking in A kg of drugs) while charging Y with a lesser offence (say, trafficking in only B kg of drugs).[23] The unequal treatment of these persons may potentially constitute an abuse of the prosecutorial discretion, as well as a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. - Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions by Fun Wei Xuan, Joel
This possible wrongful exercise of prosecution powers and discretion may have happened when the ACCUSED is charged for MURDER, when in many similar cases, they are just charged for a Road Transport Act violation. The speed in which he was charged makes one ask whether prosecution had already completed investigation, and procurred sufficient evidence which prosecution verily beliefs in sufficient to prove a prima facie case, or guilt beyond reasonable doubt > Prosecutor CANNOT charge anyone before this.
DUSUKI (Malaysia's Public Prosecutor/Attorney General) may have made a MISTAKE when he charged the drunk driver for MURDER, and also for drug consumption, to which the accused already pleaded GUILTY to the drug charges.
There are MANY killing charges - MURDER, Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder, causing death by negligence...
When it comes to MURDER (death is caused is done with the intention of causing death), for culpable homicide (doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death) - the problem arises in proving INTENTION - more so when someone is drunk or under the influence of drugs...
The mistake was for charging him also for drugs as well - which he pleaded guilty > so that is now a SERIOUS HURDLE for prosecution to prove INTENTION or even to prove that he intends or knows to be likely to cause death... will a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol have the capacity to form INTENTION or even know that he is likely to cause death?
Separately, Saktygaanapathy pleaded guilty to a charge of self‑administering drugs believed to be benzodiazepines and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), SH reported. The offence was allegedly committed at the Narcotics Office of the Klang District Police Headquarters at 3.30pm the same day.
The charge confirms that he was under the influence of drugs when the accident happened. Was there a mental evaluation conducted to determine even at the police station that he was capable of having the needed INTENTION to kill, or that he did KNOW his actions would cause death - this should be standard operating procedure...
2nd ISSUE
The public prosecutor can only charge anyone for a crime in court ONLY if investigation was complete, and the prosecutor verily believes that he can at least prove in court a PRIMA FACIE case, or better that the person is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt - this is a settled legal principle. The legal principle as to when one should be CHARGED, Arrested and released on Police Bail - The Case of PP v Tan Kim San, judgement of late Supreme Court Judge Harun Mahmud Hashim
The principle is that a person should not be charged in Court until the investigation into the case against him has been completed and there is prima facie evidence to prosecute him of the charge. In other words, a person should not be put in peril of a criminal trial unless the prosecution is able to prove the case against him. To do otherwise is an injustice.
Yes, we know that he was the driver, when the man was killed - To charge for MURDER, has evidence been acquired by Prosecution that he intended to kill the deceased - if YES, then can charge for MURDER, OR did he know that his action may cause the death of someone (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder),...If NOT, no one should be CHARGED until investigation is completed and the prosecutor has secured the EVIDENCE required...
Was even the vehicle involved investigated to determine that there was NO mechanical failures (like brakes not working, steering wheel jammed, etc..) because then liability may lie with some other maybe the car manufacturer, or some law enforcement duty bound to check that vehicles are road worthy)
So, did the Public Prosecutor violate this principle, when he speedily charged the driver for MURDER?
Was it because of 'public pressure' - well, a Public Prosecutor should not be affected by public pressure or even government pressure - he acts PROFESSIONALLY, and will not allow mere feelings or 'bias' to affect him.
THUS, if DUSUKI charged someone for MURDER to appease the Public and/or the Government, he certainly does not QUALIFY to remain Public Prosecutor???
3rd ISSUE
Why was he charged for MURDER when perpetrators in similar cases were not - they ended up being charged for the offence under Section 41 Road Transport Act?
Section 41 Road Transport Act 1987 - Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving
(1) Any person who, by the driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances (including the nature, condition and size of the road, and the amount of traffic which is or might be expected to be on the road) is dangerous to the public, causes the death of any person shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than ten years and a fine of not less than twenty thousand ringgit and not more than fifty thousand ringgit and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years and a fine of not less than fifty thousand ringgit and not more than one hundred thousand ringgit.
Several have raised this issue..
MP Rayer
However, Rayer raised concerns over another fatal accident on Feb 9 in Batu Gajah, Perak, which claimed the lives of three family members - SR Sarala Devi, 34; G Sarasbathy Gopal, 65; and three-year-old S Shaastikka.
He recalled that in that case, the driver of a Toyota Hilux, who was also believed to be under the influence of THC, was probed under Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act (RTA) 1987 for reckless and dangerous driving.
And lawyer Lateefah Koya
When contacted, lawyer Latheefa Koya echoed the demand for an explanation, citing another case against lorry driver Rudi Zulkarnain, who was charged on May 16 last year under Section 41 of the RTA for causing the death of nine FRU constables.
GOOD QUESTION - and maybe PP DUSUKI can answer...
WHY so fast - accident/death happened on 29/3/2026, and he got charged so fast on 1/4/2026 - what about the case Rayer mentioned, have the alleged perpetrator been CHARGED yet?
There should be NO DISCRIMINATION - all should be treated equally - Let's look at other similar accidents, how was the alleged perpetrator dealt with.
There is a 'PROBLEM' in Malaysia now - some who committed crimes are not being charged - WHY?
Driver at centre of viral Klang crash faces murder charge, pleads guilty to drug offence
KLANG, April 1 — The driver at the centre of a viral crash that hurled a motorcyclist onto another car was brought before the Magistrates’ Court here today to face a murder charge and a separate drug offence.
According to Sinar Harian (SH), R. Saktygaanapathy, 28, nodded to indicate he understood when the murder charge was read before Magistrate A. Karthiyayini. No plea was recorded as the case falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court.
He is accused of murdering Amirul Hafiz Omar, 33, on Jalan Raya Barat at 11.47am on March 29.
The charge is framed under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which carries the death penalty or imprisonment of between 30 and 40 years. If the death sentence is not imposed, the law requires no fewer than 12 strokes of the cane.
Separately, Saktygaanapathy pleaded guilty to a charge of self‑administering drugs believed to be benzodiazepines and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), SH reported.
The offence was allegedly committed at the Narcotics Office of the Klang District Police Headquarters at 3.30pm the same day.
That charge was brought under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which provides for a fine of up to RM5,000 or a maximum two years’ imprisonment upon conviction.
Deputy public prosecutor Raja Zaizul Faridah Raja Zaharudin conducted the prosecution, while the accused was unrepresented. - Malay Mail, 1/4/2026
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment