PUTRAJAYA: Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) media statement on its investigation of Court of Appeal Judge, Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, has harmed public trust in the judicial system.
Tengku Maimun, who led a seven-member Federal Court bench, said this when hearing an application to refer two constitutional questions relating to the MACC's investigation on Nazlan.
The questions raised in the suit by two lawyers and an activist are:
- Whether criminal investigation bodies including the MACC are only legally permitted to investigate High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges who have been suspended under Article 125 (5) of the Federal Constitution (FC)
- Whether the public prosecutor is empowered to institute or conduct any proceedings for an offence against serving judges pursuant to Article 145 (3) of the FC.
Nazlan was the former High Court Judge who convicted and sentenced Najib to 12 years jail and RM210 million fine for misappropriating RM42 million of SRC International Bhd funds.
In today's proceedings, Tengku Maimun questioned Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin what would happen if the allegations against Nazlan were unfounded, and MACC failed to come to its findings.
Liew replied that the investigation initiated by the MACC was based on its own discretion.
Tengku Maimun: We do not question the prosecution's discretion... how does that (investigation) affect the independence of the judiciary?
Liew: Public confidence will be restored if the MACC clears all the allegations against the judge.
Tengku Maimun: But the public's trust has already been affected once MACC released the statement... and then you said need to wait for the conclusion? (of the investigation).
Liew: It is the practice of the investigation body and the Attorney-General to issue a press release on the progress of the investigation, especially high-profile cases. A media statement will be issued regarding the investigation and its results.
The suit was filed by plaintiffs Nur Ain Mustapa, Sreekant Pillai and Haris Ibrahim on May 7, seeking to declare that the MACC was not entitled to investigate serving judges unless they have been suspended or removed.
The plaintiffs, represented by solicitors Messrs Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, named MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, the MACC and the Malaysian government as the first to third defendants in the suit.
Meanwhile, Malik in his submissions said the investigation by the MACC into the Judge is of an unprecedented nature, as was the purported publicising of matters pertaining to the investigation.
He said those events can only be understood as having amounted to an attack on the Judiciary, even if unintentional.
"No investigations could be carried out by the MACC, or for that matter any other criminal investigation body," he said.
The court has reserved its judgement.
The plaintiffs are seeking to declare that the MACC was not entitled to investigate serving judges unless they have been suspended or removed.
They are also seeking a declaration that a public prosecutor was not empowered to institute or conduct any proceeding for an offence against serving judges of a court and that investigations against Nazlan were unconstitutional.