The Attorney General's discretion under art 145(3) is non-justiciable and not amenable to judicial review.

[1] This case concerned whether the decision of the Attorney General made under art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution is amenable to judicial review.

[2] The foundation of the application are decisions made by the Attorney General ("the AG") appearing in a Press Release issued on 26 January 2016 ("the Press Release"). The decisions were made pursuant to the submission of three Investigation Papers by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission ("MACC") to the AG for his decision.

[3] The applicant's contention in this judicial review application is essentially challenging the decision of the Attorney General made on 26 January 2016 in a press conference.

[4] The applicant alleges that the AG had on 26 January 2016 revealed in a press conference his decision:

(a) That Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak ("the Prime Minister") had not committed any criminal offence based on the evidence and recommendations submitted to him by the MACC; and

(b) That the AG was returning the investigation papers to the MACC with instructions to close the files.

Reliefs

[5] In this application, the applicant seeks for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the decision not to prosecute the Prime Minister is ultra vires of art 145(3);

(b) a declaration that the decision directing the MACC to close its files on the investigation into offences committed by the Prime Minister is ultra vires of art 145(3);

(c) a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the said decisions; and

(d) a direction in the nature of mandamus to compel the AGC to institute criminal proceedings against the Prime Minister.

[6] In support of its application, the applicant relied on the following grounds;

(a) Upon a true construction of art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution read with art 5(1) and art 8(1) thereof, the respondent's decision not to institute any criminal proceedings against the Prime Minister is capable of being the subject matter of judicial review;

(b) The respondent took into account irrelevant considerations when arriving at the said decision;

(c) The respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations when arriving at the said decision. In particular, the respondent failed to take into account any recommendation made by the MACC when arriving at the said decision;

(d) The said decision by the respondent is unreasonable and is such that no reasonable Attorney General in the shoes of the respondent would have made, given the nature of the evidence placed before him;

(e) The said decision constitutes an abuse of the discretion vested in the respondent by the provisions of art 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and is accordingly null and void;

(f) The said decision is a violation of the applicant's fundamental right as guaranteed by the provisions of art 5(1) read with art 8(1) of the Federal Constitution in that upon a true construction of the said article, the applicant has a right of access to justice and the respondent's public declaration that the exercise of his discretion is not reviewable constitutes an infringement of the applicant's aforesaid right; and

(g) The respondent is under a legal and/or a constitutional duty to exercise the discretion conferred upon him by the provisions of art 145(3) with due consideration, reasonably in the public interest and with a sense of justice. Given the totality of the material made ava