MM:
Federal Court rules that MACC didn’t follow protocol in investigating SRC trial judge Mohd Nazlan
Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali (pic) was the trial judge in the High Court who convicted Datuk Seri Najib Razak of embezzling RM42 million belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Friday, 24 Feb 2023 11:02 AM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 24 — The nation’s highest court today unanimously held that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s investigation against judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali did not follow proper protocol.
The seven-judge panel was led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat in presiding over a suit filed by three lawyers that challenged the MACC’s investigation on Mohd Nazlan over claims that the latter had an unexplained RM1 million in his account.
“A criminal investigative body cannot on their own accord publicise or advertise facts of an investigation or contents of the investigation of a superior court judge without prior approval of the Chief Justice.
“The public prosecutor too must consult the Chief Justice during the course of giving instruction and during the course of investigation and in respect of his decision to prosecute.
“On a cursory reading of the facts and upon examining the documentary evidence on record, it is blatant that any probe commenced against Justice Nazlan was done without regard to judicial independence and none of the above protocols were allowed.
“Further, the manner in which the investigations were publicised by way of a press statement also does not appear to preserve or lend confidence to the independence of the judiciary.
“The curious timing against Justice Nazlan which was done without consultation with the judiciary also cast doubt on whether investigation against Justice Nazlan is bona fide,” she said in delivering the court’s decision through video-conferencing this morning.
Mohd Nazlan was the trial judge in the High Court who convicted former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of embezzling RM42 million belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former unit of sovereign investment firm 1MDB.
Mohd Nazlan has since been elevated to the Court of Appeal.
Tengku Maimun explained that complaints can be entirely true or entirely false and can be a calculated move to damage a judge’s credibility and reputation.
She added that criminal investigative bodies are constitutionally entitled to investigate complaints, and that the public prosecutor can decide whether or not to charge judges in the superior court, but stressed that such authority must be carried out in good faith, and only in genuine cases.
Three lawyers — Haris Ibrahim, Nur Ain Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai — filed a lawsuit last year against the MACC, questioning the probe against Mohd Nazlan.
The trio were represented by lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar while senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the MACC.
The trio claimed that the MACC’s investigation was a violation of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers by the executive branch.
They are seeking a declaration that criminal investigation bodies, including the MACC, are not entitled or are precluded from investigating serving judges of the superior courts — High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court — unless the judges are suspended as required under the Federal Constitution.
They also want the court to declare that the public prosecutor is not empowered to institute or conduct any proceeding for an offence against sitting judges in the superior courts.
MORE TO COME
Friday, 24 Feb 2023 11:02 AM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 24 — The nation’s highest court today unanimously held that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s investigation against judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali did not follow proper protocol.
The seven-judge panel was led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat in presiding over a suit filed by three lawyers that challenged the MACC’s investigation on Mohd Nazlan over claims that the latter had an unexplained RM1 million in his account.
“A criminal investigative body cannot on their own accord publicise or advertise facts of an investigation or contents of the investigation of a superior court judge without prior approval of the Chief Justice.
“The public prosecutor too must consult the Chief Justice during the course of giving instruction and during the course of investigation and in respect of his decision to prosecute.
“On a cursory reading of the facts and upon examining the documentary evidence on record, it is blatant that any probe commenced against Justice Nazlan was done without regard to judicial independence and none of the above protocols were allowed.
“Further, the manner in which the investigations were publicised by way of a press statement also does not appear to preserve or lend confidence to the independence of the judiciary.
“The curious timing against Justice Nazlan which was done without consultation with the judiciary also cast doubt on whether investigation against Justice Nazlan is bona fide,” she said in delivering the court’s decision through video-conferencing this morning.
Mohd Nazlan was the trial judge in the High Court who convicted former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of embezzling RM42 million belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former unit of sovereign investment firm 1MDB.
Mohd Nazlan has since been elevated to the Court of Appeal.
Tengku Maimun explained that complaints can be entirely true or entirely false and can be a calculated move to damage a judge’s credibility and reputation.
She added that criminal investigative bodies are constitutionally entitled to investigate complaints, and that the public prosecutor can decide whether or not to charge judges in the superior court, but stressed that such authority must be carried out in good faith, and only in genuine cases.
Three lawyers — Haris Ibrahim, Nur Ain Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai — filed a lawsuit last year against the MACC, questioning the probe against Mohd Nazlan.
The trio were represented by lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar while senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the MACC.
The trio claimed that the MACC’s investigation was a violation of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers by the executive branch.
They are seeking a declaration that criminal investigation bodies, including the MACC, are not entitled or are precluded from investigating serving judges of the superior courts — High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court — unless the judges are suspended as required under the Federal Constitution.
They also want the court to declare that the public prosecutor is not empowered to institute or conduct any proceeding for an offence against sitting judges in the superior courts.
MORE TO COME
That was what lawyer friends had said right from the beginning when it was announced that MACC was "investigating Justice Nazlan".
ReplyDeleteThe Judiciary is a separate and equal Malaysian institution to the Executive (including Police and MACC). So if the Police or MACC want to investigate a member of the Judiciary, due protocols have to be followed.
You can blame Mahathir for the contempt he showed towards Judicial independence. This led to the attitude that the Judiciary is just another branch of Government.
This IS THE SH*T OF TUN DR MATI TAK LAMA LAGI AND THOSE STUPID ARAB MOOLAYU FOOLS THINKING BAHASA STUPID MOOLAYU SHOULD BE #1 WHILE ENGLISH THROWN INTO THE TONG SAMPAH.....WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS THE TONG SAMPAH NATION AND TAHI LUBANG NATION OF MALU SIAL.....YET NO MERITOCRACY IN ENTERING UNIVERSITY IN 2023....THIS IS THE SH*T OF THIS HARAPAN GOVERNMENT...RACTIFY ICC ICERD, CRIMINALISED THE STUPID WORD OF CABAR KETUANAN...NOT IN CONSTITUTION...CABAR KEPALA OTAK HANG MINUM AIR KEROH!1
ReplyDelete