AG- The Institution over the Individual? Here?

===========================
THE Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA)'s probe into allegations against Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail for abuse of power will be conducted with integrity although there may be conflicts of interest. ....
He said there are two aspects to the A-G, namely the A-G as an individual, and the A-G as an institution which comprises other officials such as the deputy A-G or the solicitor-general.
"The decision whether to prosecute or not will not be decided by the A-G as an individual but will be made by the A-G as an institution. And, because of conflict of interests, surely he (A-G) will not take part.
- The Sun
===========================

The 'erudite' YB Nazri said, "Justice must be seen to be done..... "
"...probe into allegations.... will be conducted with integrity although there may be conflicts of interest."
"The decision whether to prosecute or not .... will be made by the A-G as an institution."

That's so "deep", Nazri!
I'm so impressed with such "integrity" in our high offices!
Pardon me, but as a layman, I fail to understand the workings (separation of powers) of the Individual and the Institution here - ....... never knew such separation of powers existed or is even possible within the AG's Chambers!
I didn't know that the AG's office could be rendered into somewhat like that of a rubber-stamp office of an institution.

Keeping an individual who is subject of a "probe" at the helm, may be detrimental to the image of the institution itself ..... that is why you have a vetting process prior to one's appointment.
It was my belief that it was the moral duty of those holding high office to vacate the seat of power, to facilitate investigation/ probe.
It would otherwise be an insult to him and the office he holds.

Of course - one is innocent until proven guilty (except in 'certain cases', where one is pronounced guilty when "he failed to prove his innocence" - but that a different story which obviously doesn't apply here.)

Of course it is technically possible to have the man in office and still have an impartial inquiry, but is this possible in practise .... what more, with the "much-envied" credibility of the current administration!

How does the Institution of the AG, now bypass the authority of the individual at the helm, when he has not been relieved of his duties?
Does that not mean that the AG cannot be privy to information - and as such "powerless" in his own home?

Due to the admitted potential for "conflict of interest", shouldn't the subject of inquiry (the individual) by right be relieved of his duties (by the Institution), until the results of the inquiry are known.
By not doing so, doesn't it discredit the "Institution" and inquiry itself?

Since "justice must be seen to be done", wouldn't it be better to at least have an acting-Chief, until the subject of the investigation is cleared?
As in the past, YB Nazri surely does a poor job at articulating his ideas on legal matters.
Senator Zaid - I think it is time you shed some light (or spin) on this matter ....

Or are we waiting for another SD to surface, to futher discredit what little's left?