MINISTER in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reforms) Azalina Othman Said was reported to have confirmed that Justice Mohamad Nazlan Ghazali, who convicted former prime minister Najib Razak of multiple corruption charges in the SRC International trial, had violated the judges’ code of ethics and had a conflict of interest when presiding over the case.

She was responding to reports of her letter to Shafee & Co who represented Najib in the case.

Azalina had earlier referred to her previous parliamentary reply on February 23 to oral questions from Tenggara MP Manndzri Nasib and Tasek Gelugor MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan, who had wanted to know about a purported leak of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation into Nazlan’s case and the outcome of the investigation.

The Hansard recorded Azalina’s reply as follows:

“Saya telah dimaklumkan oleh pihak SPRM melalui surat bertarikh 21 Februari bahawa satu laporan SPRM terhadap Yang Arif Dato’ Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali telah dikemukakan pada tarikh yang sama kepada Yang Amat Arif Ketua Hakim Negara berhubung pelanggaran peraturan di bawah Kod Etika Hakim 2009.

“Tiada makluman lanjut mengenai perkara ini dimaklumkan kepada saya melalui surat tersebut.  Perkara ini juga tertakluk kepada keputusan Yang Amat Arif Ketua Hakim Negara selaras dengan fasal-fasal (3) dan (3A), Perkara 125 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

“Di bawah fasal (3) Perkara 145, Peguam Negara ataupun Pendakwa Raya juga mempunyai kuasa untuk membolehkan dijalankan menurut budi bicaranya untuk memulakan apa-apa prosiding bagi apa-apa kesalahan. 

“Kuasa budi bicara yang diberikan kepada Peguam Negara di bawah fasal (3) Perkara 145 amat luas dan boleh menuduh mana-mana orang termasuk seseorang hakim sekiranya keterangan bagi sesuatu kesalahan memenuhi segala elemen pertuduhan tersebut.

“Namun yang demikian, kerajaan tidak akan campur tangan dalam kuasa Peguam Negara ataupun Pendakwa Raya.”

Azalina said her letter to the law firm, dated March 20, was but a reiteration of her parliamentary reply.

Now, the minister’s parliamentary reply was a day before the Federal Court delivered its ruling on February 24 that the MACC investigation into Nazlan did follow the protocol of first consulting the chief justice before launching a probe into a judge of the superior court.

Coming from the highest court of the country, the ruling is binding.

So, if there was no such protocol for the MACC to follow with regards to any complaints received against a judge, there is now.

The MACC is bound by the decision. So is the minister. Her letter to the law firm, dated Mac 20, should have alluded to the Federal Court ruling that the MACC investigation of Nazlan did not follow protocol instead of confirming that Nazlan had violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics.

Concerns must be raised over images of the letter from the MACC chief to the chief justice that made the rounds on social media. Azalina’s letter confirming Nazlan’s breach of the code does not help towards respecting rulings of the courts, more so the highest court of the country .The call by senior lawyers for contempt proceedings to be initiated against any party that interferes with the judiciary, including those who try to usurp powers to investigate judges, is timely and must be seriously considered.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.