Our very own Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has come under fierce criticism for his involvement in the nationwide road show to explain the Federal Court judgement on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case. Many say that such actions are beyond his scope as prosecutor representing the Attorney-General’s Chambers in the sodomy appeal that concluded on February 10.

Former attorney-general and former Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) chair Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said that Shafee’s licence as deputy public prosecutor should be revoked due to his continued attacks on Anwar even after the sodomy conviction.

Likewise, Universiti Malaya law professor Gurdial Singh Nijar said: “It is to emphasise that a prosecutor must at all times maintain a professional and equanimous stance in the conduct of a case. And this must be clear at all times – not just before and during a trial – but crucially even after a case is concluded”.

I do not have any legal background. As a layman, though, it is common sense that a prosecutor should refrain from making any comments once a case is concluded. The same logic goes for anyone involved in any breaching of regulations or obligations’ investigation in an organisation. The rationale for such a principle is easily understood.

Umno Youth chief and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin defended the need for such a road show to carry on, saying: “For six years – and this was the basis of the defence – it was said that this was a political conspiracy by Umno-BN against Anwar… Despite these allegations, we kept quiet. For us in Umno, it is important for us to explain these accusations... that this case did not involve Umno and BN… So we have brought Tan Sri Shafee to bring the truth to all of you.”

I must say the idea of needing to organise a nationwide road show just to explain a verdict that has already been concluded is absurd.

Furthermore, why is there any need for Shafee to agree to do this, to prove that the verdict was “correct”?

As a prominent lawyer, Shafee wears many hats. One of his roles includes his capacity as Malaysia’s representative to the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) since 2009. As Malaysia assumes the chairmanship this year, Shafee is also the AICHR chair.

In relation to this, three members of parliament, Gooi Hsiao Leung, Dr Hatta Ramli and Lim Lip Eng, recently demanded that Shafee step down as AICHR chair and be replaced with someone who is independent and non-partisan.

Some time ago, civil society groups including the Human Rights Watch demanded that Shafee step down as Malaysia’s representative for AIHCR. Their rationale was that Shafee was violating the basic fundamental proposition of human rights and could no longer claim to represent Malaysia in the commission.

Well, there are two arguments in looking at this.

Yes, it is a public fact that Shafee is an Umno lawyer. With such a background, many doubt how he would be able to perform his duties as AICHR chair in upholding and promoting human rights in the country and the Southeast Asia region. These doubts are also due to his role in many other court cases related to human rights: for instance, the Muslim transgenders and UKM4.

However, there are also some who do not think his role in AICHR is contradictory to his role as an Umno lawyer or any other human rights-related cases. The rationale is that Shafee was acting in his professional capacity by representing the government in the court case.

It is debatable because it is unclear in the AICHR terms of reference (ToR). In the ToR, under Clause 5.7, it stated that, “Each representative, in the discharge of his or her duties, shall act impartially in accordance with the Asean Charter and this ToR”.

Malaysia has received harsh criticism from the international community, not only foreign governments but also many international human rights organisations, over Anwar’s verdict. What’s more, Switzerland has announced that it will bring up Anwar’s jailing at the next meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

In such a situation, the question is how an AICHR chair should act.

Asean works in a manner of non-interference. The recent developments in the country reaffirm that AICHR was intended to be a weak human rights body and that it is a window-dressing of Asean’s commitment to human rights. After all, the criticism from the international community on Anwar’s sodomy verdict resulted from a human rights basis.

Having said that, the selection process for the AICHR representative is important. Shafee was nominated by Malaysia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry in 2009 as Malaysia’s representative, and will serve until the end of 2015.

AICHR will continue to be an ineffective and irresponsive entity unless it has independent members that are capable of acting independently. In order to achieve that, a fair and transparent nomination and selection process is needed to ensure a pool of highly qualified candidates with personal integrity.

So now, who is Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? – February 23, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.