PETALING JAYA: The removal of former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was done constitutionally, says his successor Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.
“In the interest of the administration of justice, it is important that the public is not misled into thinking otherwise,” said the newly appointed Attorney-General in a statement yesterday.
“Under the existing Clause (5) of Article 145, the Attorney-General holds office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.”
The former Federal Court judge added that Clause (6) of Article 145, which was raised by the Malaysian Bar on Tuesday, does not apply in this case.
The clause in question states that the A-G “prior to the coming into operation of this Article” cannot be removed from office unless ordered by a judge of the Federal Court.
Mohamed Apandi explained that Clause (6) only applied to the A-G at the time, which was Cecil M. Sheridan, who served in the post from 1959 to 1963.
He also made it clear that Abdul Gani, who was reportedly removed due to health reasons, had “neither been dismissed from nor reduced in rank” in the Judicial and Legal Service.
Abdul Gani would continue to serve as the Judicial and Legal Service Officer until his mandatory retirement on Oct 6 this year.
Constitutional expert Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi shared the same view as Mohamed Apandi, saying that the Federal Constitution allowed for the Prime Minister to summarily remove an Attorney-General.
“The law is quite harsh. Article 145(5) states that the Attorney-General’s office is at the pleasure of the King, which basically means that on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General can be removed summarily like how ministers can be removed under Article 43(5). I wish I could agree with the Bar but I cannot,” said Shad Saleem in an e-mail to The Star.
“Some members of the Bar are quoting Art 145(6)’s guarantees. The article is irrelevant.
“It only protects those who were appointed before 1963 when the present law came into operation.”
