It is not fair to presume by reason that since Abdul Gani Patail prosecuted Anwar Ibrahim's case, his appointment, as Attorney-General, is suggestive of a return to the old subservient "judicial disorder". My reasons are as follows.

Firstly, as head of prosecution division, he is, in terms of seniority, most eligible for the job of Attorney-General. It must be presumed in his favour that being called upon to prosecute the important Anwar cases (from the government's perspective), he must relatively be the most competent person in the prosecution team.

For detractors who complain about the incompetence of the government's prosecution team (e.g. mixing up dates of commission of crime or calling prosecution witnesses who gave evidence for the accused instead, etc.), surely Abdul Gani must still be the "king in the kingdom of the blind" to lead the prosecution team for Anwar's case.

It is important for the Attorney-General's position to be filled by someone who is familiar with a spectrum of criminal law rather than securities or corporate law, and yet be hands on, and could lead the prosecution directly himself if the occasion arises. Abdul Gani fits the bill in these respects.

Secondly, on the issue of integrity, his appointment is controversial only because he prosecuted Anwar in a case which many in this country felt was trumped up due to a political struggle and challenged rather than actual commission of corrupt practice and sodomy.

Rightly or wrongly, it must be said in Abdul Gani's defence that as a senior deputy public prosecutor and federal counsel in the Attorney-General's Chambers, it was his job and duty to prosecute Anwar Ibrahim and Sukma Darmawan, desist from appealing against Rahim Noor's light sentencing, or offer plea bargaining to Anwar's former tennis partner, S Nallakaruppan as might be instructed, directed and assigned by his boss, the Attorney-General Moktar Abdullah, of which it was not given to Abdul Gani to turn down, countermand or contradict.

As prosecutor, Abdul Gani's job was to present evidence and argue Anwar's prosecution as best as he could for the government regardless of the political unpopularity of such a prosecution! It was not his job to judge guilt or innocence. That was the job of, and for the judge - Justice S Augustine Paul or Arifin Jaka.

Therefore, whatever one may feel about the correctness or otherwise of the judgment or the unfair selectiveness or otherwise of Anwar's prosecution, these considerations, rightly or wrongly should be directed at the judges and the then Attorney-General respectively, but in all fairness, not the prosecutor who was merely doing what he was employed and assigned to do, as a duty, to the best of his ability.

Thirdly, fears of selective prosecution do not necessarily translate to judicial disorder assuming judges are independent and fair. Besides, it is premature to speculate that Abdul Gani will be susceptible to selective prosecution when he has not even been given the opportunity to carry out his duties as Attorney-General.

He, like any other person, should be judged by the record of what he did and not what others speculate or expect him to do in the future. What he had done was to carry out his duties as chief prosecutor to prosecute and not as Attorney-General to determine who and on what basis to prosecute.

Abdul Gani, in short, has no record as yet on which one could judge his performance as Attorney-General (as distinct from prosecutor), and it is basic fairness that he should not be prejudged, without being afforded the opportunity to carry out his assignment. So far he is adjudged guilty by his detractors only by way of association as the right-hand man of the previous Attorney-General.

Hence the problem is not Abdul Gani but the power that be who have selected a person whose appointment is bound to invite controversy or criticism from some quarters.

Finally, in a democracy, what is important is the impartiality and independence of the judges, not the Attorney-General who, by definition, is the government's chief lawyer, fights the government's case and determines prosecution of crimes for the state.

An Attorney-General is not expected to be independent but he should be fair in decisions on prosecution, balancing the interest of the state and the citizen.