FMT:
MACC found Nazlan conflicted, breached judges’ ethics, says Azalina
The law minister says MACC’s probe on Justice Nazlan Ghazali concluded he had a conflict of interest when presiding over Najib Razak’s SRC International case.
Justice Nazlan Ghazali, now a Court of Appeal judge, was the trial judge for Najib Razak’s SRC International case.
PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s probe on Justice Nazlan Ghazali concluded he had violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics and had a conflict of interest when presiding over the SRC International case, says law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said.
In a letter dated March 20 to Najib Razak’s solicitors, Shafee & Co, Azalina confirmed that Nazlan, who presided over Najib’s SRC trial in the High Court, had breached the code and had a conflict of interest.
She said this was based on a report of MACC’s findings dated Feb 20, which the agency extended to her.
She was responding to a letter from Najib’s solicitors dated March 15 inquiring whether MACC had written to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to recommend that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against Nazlan in relation to his conduct of the SRC case.
In the letter, the law firm had asked whether MACC had concluded that Nazlan had breached the Judges’ Code of Ethics and had a conflict of interest.
In her letter replying to Shafee, Azalina said: “I can confirm that the answers to the questions (you have set out) are in the affirmative.”
Images of a purported letter from MACC chief Azam Baki to Tengku Maimun made the rounds on social media days after the Federal Court dismissed Najib’s bid to review his conviction and sentence.
The letter, dated Feb 20, stated that MACC’s investigations had found “issues of wrongdoing” by Nazlan that the chief justice “needed to consider”.
On Feb 24, a seven-member Federal Court panel led by Tengku Maimun accused MACC of not following protocol when conducting its investigation into Nazlan.
The investigation followed allegations that unexplained sums of money had been deposited into his bank account.
In her judgment, Tengku Maimun said investigative agencies like MACC must consult the chief justice before initiating a probe against a superior court judge.
Nazlan, now a judge on the Court of Appeal, had convicted Najib in July 2020 on charges of abuse of power, money laundering and criminal breach of trust over RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International.
He sentenced Najib to 12 years’ jail and fined him RM210 million. Najib’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in December 2021. The Federal Court on Aug 23 last year upheld the conviction and sentence.
Najib began serving his 12-year prison term immediately following the Federal Court decision.
Last Friday, a separate Federal Court bench dismissed Najib’s application for a review of his conviction and sentence.
As a result, the former prime minister will be required to serve the remainder of his prison term, unless he secures a royal pardon.
PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s probe on Justice Nazlan Ghazali concluded he had violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics and had a conflict of interest when presiding over the SRC International case, says law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said.
In a letter dated March 20 to Najib Razak’s solicitors, Shafee & Co, Azalina confirmed that Nazlan, who presided over Najib’s SRC trial in the High Court, had breached the code and had a conflict of interest.
She said this was based on a report of MACC’s findings dated Feb 20, which the agency extended to her.
She was responding to a letter from Najib’s solicitors dated March 15 inquiring whether MACC had written to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to recommend that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against Nazlan in relation to his conduct of the SRC case.
In the letter, the law firm had asked whether MACC had concluded that Nazlan had breached the Judges’ Code of Ethics and had a conflict of interest.
In her letter replying to Shafee, Azalina said: “I can confirm that the answers to the questions (you have set out) are in the affirmative.”
Images of a purported letter from MACC chief Azam Baki to Tengku Maimun made the rounds on social media days after the Federal Court dismissed Najib’s bid to review his conviction and sentence.
The letter, dated Feb 20, stated that MACC’s investigations had found “issues of wrongdoing” by Nazlan that the chief justice “needed to consider”.
On Feb 24, a seven-member Federal Court panel led by Tengku Maimun accused MACC of not following protocol when conducting its investigation into Nazlan.
The investigation followed allegations that unexplained sums of money had been deposited into his bank account.
In her judgment, Tengku Maimun said investigative agencies like MACC must consult the chief justice before initiating a probe against a superior court judge.
Nazlan, now a judge on the Court of Appeal, had convicted Najib in July 2020 on charges of abuse of power, money laundering and criminal breach of trust over RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International.
He sentenced Najib to 12 years’ jail and fined him RM210 million. Najib’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in December 2021. The Federal Court on Aug 23 last year upheld the conviction and sentence.
Najib began serving his 12-year prison term immediately following the Federal Court decision.
Last Friday, a separate Federal Court bench dismissed Najib’s application for a review of his conviction and sentence.
As a result, the former prime minister will be required to serve the remainder of his prison term, unless he secures a royal pardon.
***
kt comments: See following to realise the truth in the claims of CJ, Judiciary and the seeming hostility of the Bar Council towards Najib:
~~~~~~~~~
FMT:
What protocol, ex-CJ asks apex court after Nazlan probe ruling
Abdul Hamid Mohamad has criticised the Federal Court’s finding that MACC’s probe into Justice Nazlan Ghazali violated protocol.
FMT Reporters - 03 Mar 2023, 5:00pm
Abdul Hamid Mohamad served as the country’s fifth chief justice from November 2007 to October 2008. (Bernama pic)
PETALING JAYA: A former chief justice has torn into a recent ruling by the Federal Court which found that the investigation against Justice Nazlan Ghazali by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had violated protocol.
In a blog post, Abdul Hamid Mohamad pointed out that there was no written law to govern the matter.
Neither has the protocol described by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ever been mentioned by the courts prior to its formulation by the Federal Court via its ruling last week, he said.
“Without finding any clear constitutional provisions to depend on, the court used the principle of judicial independence and created a new protocol.
“In effect, the MACC was found to have breached a protocol that had yet to exist.
“Whatever it is, the decision gave the courts an excuse to find fault with the investigation.
“Whether it has cleared Nazlan’s name is another matter altogether,” said Hamid, who served as Malaysia’s fifth chief justice from November 2007 to October 2008.
Hamid said the seven-member panel’s ruling should have stopped after it answered the two questions of the law posed in the case which the court was hearing.
Filed by lawyers Nur Ain Mustapa, Sreekant Pillai and Haris Ibrahim, the suit sought a declaration that the MACC was not permitted to investigate serving judges unless they were suspended or removed from office.
It also asked whether the prosecutor could initiate criminal proceedings against serving judges.
In its answer, the apex court held that investigative bodies like the MACC could probe serving judges and that they can be prosecuted for potential criminal offences.
“However, the chief justice and the judiciary could not allow their ruling to stop there, having twice issued statements defending Nazlan. Otherwise, it would seem as though the claims made by Raja Petra Kamarudin are true.
“It must be noted that none of the parties in the case had pleaded or was asked to address the court on the matters which became the subject of the decision. Those matters were raised by the court on its own,” said Hamid.
The former chief justice said he had been extremely concerned by several decisions delivered by the Federal Court in recent times, and that the apex court had exceeded its jurisdiction in several decisions.
He said the present judgment made it seem like the legislative and executive branches of government did not have the power to carry out their duties independently.
The judgment also puts judges “on a pedestal higher than government ministers and even the Malay Rulers” by requiring the authorities to consult the chief justice before initiating a probe against serving judges.
According to Hamid, the judgment also insinuated that MACC’s probe had been carried out in bad faith and for “collateral purposes”.
“What other purpose could there have been? Only one comes to mind, which is to secure a court ruling that (former prime minister) Najib Razak had suffered an injustice and deserves a retrial,” he said.
“Have the judges forgotten that MACC has spent tens if not hundreds of hours investigating Najib’s case? If anyone would want Najib convicted, it would be the MACC,” he added.
Instead, MACC was portrayed as defending Najib, said Hamid.
The former top judge said he was not opposed to the establishment of a set of protocols when probing judges. However, that was a policy matter for the executive to deliberate on, he added.
“The judiciary can make its proposals on the matter to the executive. If the executive agrees, then it should be made law by Parliament,” said Hamid.
“In other words, do it the right way.”
Nazlan presided over Najib’s SRC International corruption trial and convicted him on seven counts of corruption and abuse of power.
He went on to sentence Najib to imprisonment for 12 years and imposed a fine of RM210 million.
Najib has maintained that Nazlan ought not to have tried the case due to a conflict of interest. He says Nazlan, in his previous capacity as general counsel of the Maybank Group, was directly involved in banking matters involving SRC and its then parent company, 1MDB.
Those complaints became the subject of an investigation by the MACC.
An incomplete document appearing to be the MACC’s report on the investigation was leaked online by Raja Petra shortly before the decision was handed down in July 2020.
Najib’s application to adduce fresh evidence relating to Nazlan’s alleged conflict of interest was dismissed by the Federal Court in August last year.
On Aug 23 last year, the apex court went on to dismiss Najib’s final appeal and ordered that his jail term commence immediately.
PETALING JAYA: A former chief justice has torn into a recent ruling by the Federal Court which found that the investigation against Justice Nazlan Ghazali by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had violated protocol.
In a blog post, Abdul Hamid Mohamad pointed out that there was no written law to govern the matter.
Neither has the protocol described by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ever been mentioned by the courts prior to its formulation by the Federal Court via its ruling last week, he said.
“Without finding any clear constitutional provisions to depend on, the court used the principle of judicial independence and created a new protocol.
“In effect, the MACC was found to have breached a protocol that had yet to exist.
“Whatever it is, the decision gave the courts an excuse to find fault with the investigation.
“Whether it has cleared Nazlan’s name is another matter altogether,” said Hamid, who served as Malaysia’s fifth chief justice from November 2007 to October 2008.
Hamid said the seven-member panel’s ruling should have stopped after it answered the two questions of the law posed in the case which the court was hearing.
Filed by lawyers Nur Ain Mustapa, Sreekant Pillai and Haris Ibrahim, the suit sought a declaration that the MACC was not permitted to investigate serving judges unless they were suspended or removed from office.
It also asked whether the prosecutor could initiate criminal proceedings against serving judges.
In its answer, the apex court held that investigative bodies like the MACC could probe serving judges and that they can be prosecuted for potential criminal offences.
“However, the chief justice and the judiciary could not allow their ruling to stop there, having twice issued statements defending Nazlan. Otherwise, it would seem as though the claims made by Raja Petra Kamarudin are true.
“It must be noted that none of the parties in the case had pleaded or was asked to address the court on the matters which became the subject of the decision. Those matters were raised by the court on its own,” said Hamid.
The former chief justice said he had been extremely concerned by several decisions delivered by the Federal Court in recent times, and that the apex court had exceeded its jurisdiction in several decisions.
He said the present judgment made it seem like the legislative and executive branches of government did not have the power to carry out their duties independently.
The judgment also puts judges “on a pedestal higher than government ministers and even the Malay Rulers” by requiring the authorities to consult the chief justice before initiating a probe against serving judges.
According to Hamid, the judgment also insinuated that MACC’s probe had been carried out in bad faith and for “collateral purposes”.
“What other purpose could there have been? Only one comes to mind, which is to secure a court ruling that (former prime minister) Najib Razak had suffered an injustice and deserves a retrial,” he said.
“Have the judges forgotten that MACC has spent tens if not hundreds of hours investigating Najib’s case? If anyone would want Najib convicted, it would be the MACC,” he added.
Instead, MACC was portrayed as defending Najib, said Hamid.
The former top judge said he was not opposed to the establishment of a set of protocols when probing judges. However, that was a policy matter for the executive to deliberate on, he added.
“The judiciary can make its proposals on the matter to the executive. If the executive agrees, then it should be made law by Parliament,” said Hamid.
“In other words, do it the right way.”
Nazlan presided over Najib’s SRC International corruption trial and convicted him on seven counts of corruption and abuse of power.
He went on to sentence Najib to imprisonment for 12 years and imposed a fine of RM210 million.
Najib has maintained that Nazlan ought not to have tried the case due to a conflict of interest. He says Nazlan, in his previous capacity as general counsel of the Maybank Group, was directly involved in banking matters involving SRC and its then parent company, 1MDB.
Those complaints became the subject of an investigation by the MACC.
An incomplete document appearing to be the MACC’s report on the investigation was leaked online by Raja Petra shortly before the decision was handed down in July 2020.
Najib’s application to adduce fresh evidence relating to Nazlan’s alleged conflict of interest was dismissed by the Federal Court in August last year.
On Aug 23 last year, the apex court went on to dismiss Najib’s final appeal and ordered that his jail term commence immediately.
Back in 2014, Abdul Hamid lead the National Unity Front, which was formed by Malay and Muslim NGOs including Perkasa. Shows you his mentality and agenda since his retirement.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider him as a unbiased commentator on the matter of Najib.
Fact is he showed there was no such protocol that CJ mentioned to void the MACC probe into Nazlan. Thus his political affiliation is not the issue, but rather the CJ's dodgy "creation" of a non-existent protocol which places judges above everyone including rulers. Why did the CJ risk such a bold brazen step, if not seeming hostility towards Najib or the imperative to protect Nazlan
Deletehttps://www.malaysiakini.com/news/661328
DeleteMACC clearly overstepped its powers under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which gives it powers to investigate and prosecute violations of Corruption Law.
It is now clear that the original allegations that unexplained sums of money had been deposited into Nazlan’s bank account is Bullshit, made under bad faith , intended for “collateral purposes”, which is to secure a court ruling that (former prime minister) Najib Razak had suffered an injustice and deserves a retrial.
"There is a very specific mechanism for questions of possible violations of Judicial Ethics.. A Judges' Ethics Committee under the Judges' Ethics Committee Act 2010 is the sole authority (to make such findings)" , not the MACC, whose job is to investigate corruption.