“I Am Not Above the Law” Is Not the Test — Credibility Is: Why the Attorney General Must Either Restore Public Trust or Step Aside
Judicial Correspondent
The Attorney General’s declaration — “I am not above the law” — delivered before a supportive delegation of lawyers, is rhetorically reassuring. It is also constitutionally insufficient.
In a functioning democracy, no public office-holder is above the law. That proposition is not a personal virtue; it is a baseline assumption. The true constitutional test for an Attorney General is not whether courts exist to correct him, but whether his conduct inspires confidence that justice is pursued fearlessly, independently, and without regard to political or financial power.
It is precisely because the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court exist that the Attorney General must exercise his powers with unimpeachable credibility. Courts are not a safety net for prosecutorial failure; they are a forum of last resort when institutional integrity collapses.
The Attorney General’s Office Is Not a Litigant — It Is a Constitutional Trustee
The Attorney General is not an ordinary public servant defending administrative decisions. He is the principal law officer of the Republic, entrusted with:
-
deciding whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute,
-
determining the pace and seriousness of criminal proceedings,
-
advising the State on legality, constitutionality, and public interest.
These powers are discretionary, but discretion without public confidence is indistinguishable from arbitrariness.
When public confidence erodes, the damage is not to the Attorney General personally, but to the entire justice system. Victims lose faith, witnesses retreat, and impunity becomes normalized.
“Challenge Me in Court” Is a Deflection, Not Accountability
The Attorney General’s assertion — “If I make a mistake, go to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court” — subtly misplaces responsibility.
Courts are not supervisory managers of prosecutorial ethics. They do not initiate justice; they adjudicate disputes brought before them. When:
-
investigations stagnate,
-
indictments are selectively delayed,
-
high-profile suspects enjoy procedural indulgence unavailable to ordinary citizens,
the harm has already occurred before any court can intervene.
Judicial review is not designed to compensate for a loss of prosecutorial will.
Public Criticism Is Not Contempt of Court
Supporters of the Attorney General have framed criticism as “organized, defamatory, hostile campaigns”, allegedly driven by journalists, YouTubers, and overseas actors.
This framing is dangerous.
In a republic governed by the rule of law:
-
public scrutiny of prosecutorial conduct is legitimate,
-
criticism does not become illegitimate merely because it is uncomfortable,
-
dissent is not evidence of conspiracy.
Equating criticism with an attack on judicial independence risks weaponising independence itself — turning it into a shield against accountability.
Independence Does Not Mean Immunity From Consequences
The Attorney General’s Department may be institutionally independent, but independence is not immunity from consequences when public trust collapses.
Independence exists to ensure decisions are taken without fear or favour — not to protect those decisions from questioning.
If prosecutorial independence is perceived as selective — aggressive against the powerless and hesitant against the powerful — then independence becomes indistinguishable from complicity.
The Real Question: Are Political and Financial Backgrounds Irrelevant?
The decisive question confronting the Attorney General today is not whether courts can correct him, but whether the public believes that:
-
political pedigree,
-
elite networks,
-
financial influence,
-
international connections,
play no role whatsoever in prosecutorial decisions.
If the public perceives — rightly or wrongly — that certain individuals are “untouchable”, then the Attorney General’s moral authority is already compromised.
In such circumstances, legal correctness alone is insufficient. Justice must be seen to be done, not merely defended in technical language.
Lawyers’ Endorsements Do Not Substitute for Public Confidence
Support letters from professional organizations, however well-intentioned, cannot substitute for public trust.
The Attorney General is not appointed to satisfy lawyers’ associations. He is appointed to serve the Republic.
When public confidence reaches a critical low, history shows only two credible paths remain:
-
Radical restoration of trust — through transparent, demonstrably impartial action against all wrongdoers, regardless of status; or
-
Resignation with dignity — to preserve the integrity of the office rather than the tenure of the office-holder.
Resignation Is Not an Admission of Guilt — It Is an Act of Institutional Responsibility
In mature democracies, senior law officers resign not because courts compel them, but because the institution cannot function without confidence.
Resignation in such circumstances is not weakness. It is an affirmation that:
-
the office is greater than the individual,
-
justice must never appear compromised,
-
credibility is the lifeblood of prosecution.
The Attorney General Must Choose the Office Over Himself
The Attorney General is correct about one thing: he is not above the law.
But the law demands more than personal compliance. It demands institutional credibility, moral authority, and public confidence.
If he believes he has acted without error, bias, or hesitation, then he must prove it through visible, fearless prosecution of wrongdoing — irrespective of political or financial background.
If he cannot restore that confidence, then constitutional propriety leaves only one honorable option: to step aside immediately, not under pressure, but in service of justice.
Because the greatest threat to the Attorney General’s Department is not criticism —
it is the public’s belief that justice no longer applies equally to all.