MACC’s investigations in the judiciary: a symptom of deeper institutional rot
During a Dewan Rakyat sitting on 6 April 2023, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reforms) Azalina Othman revealed that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)’s investigations into Justice Nazlan Ghazali had found that he violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics when he presided over the controversial SRC International case. According to the MACC, Justice Nazlan, who handed former Prime Minister Najib Razak a 12-year prison sentence, was involved in conflict of interest. The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) strongly objects to the MACC’s overreach, and reminds politicians that the guilt of corrupt individuals as proven in a court of law is not a matter to be politicised.
The MACC’s current jurisdiction and powers are afforded to them through the MACC Act – there exists no stipulations in the Act that would allow them to overstep into deciding whether or not a judge has violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics, an issue that remains within the judiciary’s purview. As an Executive body under the supervision of the Prime Minister’s Department, this action sets off alarm bells of Executive interference into the Judiciary.
The Bar Council and prominent lawyers have pointed out that this is an attempt by the MACC to intimidate the Judiciary. If the MACC continues to stand by these findings and not retract them or issue an official rectification, this would set a dangerous precedent in allowing the Executive to undermine the Judiciary. In positioning themselves as being able to decide on matters of Judges’ ethical conduct in a public setting, the MACC could inadvertently erode public trust in the judicial system. This is especially dangerous considering that corrupt politicians by-and-large have been able to escape legal scrutiny owing to the gaps in existing institutions – throwing doubt on such a major decision would hamper subsequent efforts to bring corrupt individuals to justice.
