KUALA LUMPUR: There is no agency or body other than the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) that has the authority and competency to investigate corruption-related offences in the country.
MACC operation review panel chairman Datuk Ahmad Rosli Mohd Sham said the MACC Act 2009 empowered the commission to investigate any form of corruption and abuse of power involving all people, even if that person is a High Court judge.
The former deputy head of the Attorney-General Chambers' (A-GC) Prosecution Division dismissed claims that the graft busters were neither competent nor had the jurisdiction to investigate a former High Court judge.
"When MACC receives a report or complaint on allegations of corruption, abuse of power or misappropriation, it is duty-bound to investigate.
"If it finds evidence and facts to support corrupt elements or abuse of power, it refers its investigation papers to the AG," he said in a statement.
Rosli was responding to the Malaysian Bar's statement over the debate arising from the decision handed down by the Federal Court at the end of last month, which dismissed the application by former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to review his conviction for misappropriating SRC International Bhd funds.
Its president, Karen Cheah, in a statement, said the proper body to investigate and decide on the ethical conduct of judges lied with the Judicial Ethics Committee established under the Judges' Ethics Committee Act 2010.
"MACC has no role to play in this exercise.
"The Judiciary, as an institution, and judges, are conferred with certain constitutional guarantees that insulate them from political pressures — a safeguard that is necessary to secure their impartiality.
"It, therefore, follows that any MACC investigation into the purported breach of judges' ethics blatantly contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers, as it amounts to an interference by the executive with the administration of justice," Cheah said.
Rosli disagreed with Cheah by saying that MACC's constitutional rights and powers to investigate any form of suspected corruption and abuse of power of a superior judge were reflected and affirmed in the case of Haris Fathillah bin Mohamed Ibrahim & Anor vs Tan Sri Dato' Sri Haji Azam bin Baki & Anor.
"It is not true for the Malaysian Bar to say that MACC is not competent or does not have the jurisdiction to investigate a former High Court judge in that respect.
"It should also be noted that without the competency of MACC in investigating the SRC International case, the case would not have been able to stand trial in court, much less secure a strong conviction that withstood several levels of appeals by the defendants.
"It is my humble opinion that no one or parties should be exempted from investigations by law enforcement, be it members of the administration, the legislative or the judiciary."
The Federal Court on Feb 24 ruled that the MACC's investigation against Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali was done without following protocols.
Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who led a seven-member panel, said the investigation against Nazlan must be conducted in accordance with certain protocols to protect judicial independence.
Nazlan was the High Court judge who convicted and sentenced Najib to 12 years jail and a RM210 million fine for misappropriating RM42 million of SRC International funds.