To charge or not to charge

THE Attorney-General is reported (The Star, Oct 28) as having explained why Datuk Ibrahim Ali was not charged under the Sedition Act for calling for the burning of Bibles with the word “Allah”. He said it was because Ibrahim had no intention to create religious disharmony and that was why he was not charged.

I am troubled by the A-G conflating two processes – the court process and the process where he had to decide whether to charge the man under the Sedition Act – and then giving his view that the man did not intend to create disharmony under the Sedition Act.