Legal experts question the lengthy tenure for Malaysia’s new public prosecutor, urging a shorter term and clearer safeguards in the constitutional amendment.
PETALING JAYA: The proposed seven-year term for the public prosecutor (PP) under the constitutional amendment separating the roles of attorney-general and PP has drawn criticism for being excessively long and may need reconsideration.
Taylor’s University senior law lecturer, Dr Wilson T.V. Tay said the tenure is unusually lengthy, noting that only three of the 10 former attorneys-general since independence have served more than seven years.
“Constitutionally, a term of seven years would also be among the longest in the book. Longer than a term of Parliament, longer than the maximum time one can serve as a senator, and longer even than a term of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.”
Tay urged the government to clarify how it arrived at the seven-year figure, suggesting the rationale could be explained during the Bill’s second reading when the responsible minister is expected to provide a detailed justification.
From a governance standpoint, Tay said a shorter term would be preferable, allowing sufficient time to assess the PP’s performance before considering an extension.
“Personally, I don’t see why it should stretch beyond five years – the maximum lifespan of a parliament and also the standard term of a Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is, after all, the supreme head of the federation – at one go.”
While supporting provisions for renewal, Tay recommended setting limits.
“Yes, there should be provision for renewal, but there should be a cap – two terms (or 10 years, as is being proposed for the position of prime minister) would perhaps be an ideal ballpark figure.”
Despite these reservations, Tay described the Bill as “a good start”, highlighting that it introduces job security and pay protection for the PP, while reducing the prime minister’s influence over appointments by involving the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Conference of Rulers, and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC).
“It is not apparent that the reformed JLSC, which would now include at least two senior judges and a member appointed by the Agong in his discretion, would be necessarily subservient to the executive branch,” he said.
Tay also voiced concerns over a clause in the proposed Article 145B granting the PP the authority to decide which courts handle criminal cases – a power previously held by the attorney-general.
He explained that the Supreme Court, in 1987, had originally classified this authority as judicial, meaning it should be exercised by the courts themselves.
A 1988 constitutional amendment, however, transferred the power to the attorney-general.
“With the current amendments to Article 145, the power should now be returned to the courts to maintain a proper separation of powers,” Tay said.
As an additional safeguard, he proposed a reporting mechanism.
“It would be good if there is a requirement for the PP to periodically report to Parliament on their work and be scrutinised,” he said, stressing that such scrutiny differs from Parliament controlling appointments or removals.
“If the PP’s work is reported to and examined by Parliament, it would create a public forum for accountability.
“Political pressure on the JLSC could result if anything improper is revealed, but this differs from Parliament directly controlling the office.”
