Questioning the reliance on inquests, many critics argue that the process is being used as a stalling tactic to avoid accountability in the Durian Tunggal shooting. When clear evidence is available, the refusal to prosecute immediately suggests a lack of political will to hold those responsible to account. This delay not only denies justice to the victims but also erodes public confidence in the impartiality of the Attorney General’s Chambers.
For many, the distinction between an inquest and a prosecution is a matter of urgency. An inquest is often perceived as a secondary measure that can drag on for months or even years, effectively shielding potential defendants from the immediate consequences of their actions. By demanding that the Attorney General either prosecute or resign, the legal community is highlighting the systemic failure to act decisively when the facts appear to be well-established.
This situation creates a dangerous precedent where the public begins to view the legal system as a tool for delay rather than a mechanism for justice. If the authorities continue to opt for inquests in cases where criminal intent is suspected, they risk being seen as complicit in the lack of accountability. The impact on the community is profound, as it fosters a sense of cynicism regarding the ability of the law to protect citizens from harm.
Ultimately, the demand for prosecution is a call for the restoration of institutional responsibility. The public deserves a system that acts with transparency and speed, especially when lives are at stake. If the current leadership cannot meet these expectations, it is reasonable for the public and the legal profession to demand a change in direction to ensure that justice is not just promised, but delivered.