SENIOR lawyers are calling for contempt proceedings to be initiated against any party that interferes with the judiciary, including those who try to usurp powers to investigate judges. 

They said this in reference to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) probe against justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali. The anti-graft agency had concluded that Nazlan had a conflict of interest in the SRC International case involving ex-prime minister Najib Razak. 

The lawyers said MACC had no jurisdiction in investigating the conduct of a judge, which fell under the judges’ code of ethics and required a judicial response.  

Malaysian Bar president Karen Cheah said MACC’s action was blatant interference by the executive in the administration of justice. 

She said it was clearly an attempt to erode the independence of the judiciary.  

“Perhaps more drastic action such as contempt proceedings needs to be taken against all those who have raised or continued to raise this matter just to sow seeds of doubt on a case that has reached the end of the road. 

“Especially when the Federal Court has already delivered its final decision, and all legal remedies in court have already been exhausted by the former prime minister (Najib Razak),” she said.  

On Wednesday, MACC said Nazlan – who convicted Najib of multiple corruption charges for embezzling SRC International funds – had a conflict of interest in the case.  

Law and Institutional Reform Minister Azalina Othman Said confirmed this in a letter dated March 20 to Najib’s solicitors, Shafee & Co. 

Based on MACC’s findings dated February 20, Azalina said Nazlan had violated the judges’ code of ethics and had a conflict of interest. 

Shafee & Co had written to Azalina on March 15, enquiring whether MACC had established a conflict of interest and, if so, had it written to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to recommend that Nazlan be disciplined. 

Cheah said MACC had endangered the judiciary’s independence with its action, adding that it could only be read as MACC pressuring the judiciary although it had no real understanding of how the administration of justice worked. 

“In fact, it appears as if MACC wishes to take over the role of the judiciary and either try to indirectly overrule the decisions of the Federal Court made in August 2022 and March 31, 2023 on the issue of conflict of interest, or they wish to take over the role of the judges’ ethics committee.” 

“From media reports, it is quite apparent that MACC has not demonstrated any real understanding or competence on matters of judicial code of ethics, and it has failed to appreciate how the administration of justice works.  

“Their lack of appreciation on the difference between judicial code of ethics and corruption is very worrying indeed, especially when it is supposed to be the key organisation looking into eradication of corruption in the country.” 

Cheah added that the Malaysian Bar would push for substantial reforms to MACC’s structure and appointments.  

“A complete overhaul is necessary. MACC is perceived today as having failed to realise its full potential and instead of reducing the corruption index in the country, they have crossed into territories not belonging to them.” 

Attorney general should act 

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said as far as the law is concerned, authorities such as the police or MACC have the power to only investigate crime. 

“They (authorities) have no power to investigate a judge’s conduct because when it comes to judges’ code of ethics, that is not MACC’s jurisdiction.” 

He said in this matter, the judiciary had no power to take action, but the attorney general could intervene.  

He added that Attorney General Idrus Harun should take this matter seriously. 

“If there is possible contempt, then take steps to initiate contempt proceedings against Azalina and Azam Baki (MACC chief). 

“When a case is final and has been decided, whatever dissatisfaction with the decision has to stop. There must be finality.” 

Meanwhile, constitutional expert and lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar Gurdial said MACC had no right to comment on a judge’s breach of judicial ethics because it was expressly within the powers of the judiciary itself.  

“There is a whole code of judicial ethics.  More importantly, the powers of MACC are limited to what is prescribed by the MACC Act itself.  

“All their powers are to deal with offences under the Act, which are in relation to gratification, corruption and so on. 

“This (investigation on ethics of judges) is outside their jurisdiction. They have no right to do that.” 

He added that there were enough case laws to support what he said. – April 8, 2023.