KUALA LUMPUR – The ball is in the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) court as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption (MACC) has submitted its investigation papers on May 18 on appellate judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who was accused of having unexplained funds in his account.
In a brief statement today, MACC said it has completed its investigation into Nazlan, including collecting relevant evidence in accordance with established guidelines and procedures.
It added that it is now up to the AGC to conduct further study and action.
Nazlan was the presiding high court judge in former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s SRC International trial at the Kuala Lumpur High Court that commenced in April 2019 and delivered the guilty verdict in July 2020.
He was also the judge who convicted and sentenced Najib on charges relating to RM42 million belonging to SRC International in July 2020. An appeal against the conviction is pending before the Federal Court.
Last month, Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo urged the MACC to clarify whether the facts in the reports lodged against Nazlan had been verified prior to launching its investigation.
Gobind said the onus falls on Azam to respond to criticism that the probe on the judge is akin to an attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
Meanwhile, lawyers Nur Ain Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai, and activist Haris Ibrahim had filed an originating summons early this month against the government to determine constitutional issues relating to separation of powers and judiciary independence.
They also named MACC chief Tan Sri Azam Baki, the anti-graft agency and the government as defendants.
Besides a declaration that the MACC’s investigation into Nazlan is unconstitutional, the trio are seeking one to declare that criminal investigation agencies, including the MACC, are not entitled to probe into serving judges of the superior courts unless required by the federal constitution.
The suit also seeks to declare that the public prosecutor has no powers to institute or conduct any proceedings for an offence against serving judges of the superior courts.
It added that in the face of the MACC’s assertion that it is entitled to investigate a sitting judge, the silence from the federal government and the attorney-general signifies that they agree with the MACC’s stand. – The Vibes, May 21, 2022
