LAWYERS and politicians have recently argued about whether the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission is the appropriate agency to investigate the alleged corruption of a judge.

Some of the arguments tend to take a dualistic approach, especially in a political climate where truth is determine based on which side of the political spectrum one is on rather than eyeing the matter from an objective perspective.

In this situation, however, truth will remain in the shadows due to the subjective, relativistic and rigid understanding of the constitutional doctrine.

There is a pick-and-choose aspect that does not help in building citizen confidence on vital institutions of checks and balances in the country.

For example, there is an argument on whether the judiciary can investigate its own judges.

Some agree when it comes to ethical conduct and discipline, but not when it comes to criminal offences. Article 125 of the Federal Constitution does not accord the judiciary such power.

But the Malaysian Bar claimed that article 125 provides a mechanism for the setting up of a tribunal to assess the misconduct of a judge, meaning that a judge should not be investigated like ordinary citizens.

However, Bar critics said the article clearly pertains to mechanisms for the removal of a judge due to disciplinary issues, not criminal offences.

One of the perennial problems facing the nation now is a trust deficit towards institutions due to a perceived selective nature of prosecutions for corruption over the years. This has played into the motives of those who are polemical on the issue at hand.

The solution is not so much about the dualistic approach in regard to article 125, but how to shed light on the article without doing away with its original spirit.

This is what we call the development of doctrine of separation of powers.

Development of doctrine is a term used by late theologian John Henry Newman and theologians influenced by him to describe the way Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements.

Article 125 may be seen in new light – it should not only address judge-related disciplinary issues but also investigate alleged criminal activities. There can be an independent body formed to investigate any judge suspected of criminal activities.

This will ensure the doctrine of separation of powers is not read and understood rigidly, but instead given a more detailed interpretation without destroying its original purpose.

It is hoped that authorities and politicians will stop the polemic surrounding the doctrine of separation of powers and build public confidence in institutions by embracing the enlighten way to resolve the constitutional issue. – May 8, 2022.

* Ronald Benjamin is secretary of Welfare Community and Dialogue Association

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.