IT is with much interest that current discourse and debates had thrusted the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) again into the limelight, and predominantly questioning MACCs’ independence or lack of it in conducting investigation into high-profile cases.
Political actors and activists across the spectrum often accuse the agency of selective prosecution though notably, such allegations usually arise when their own party leaders are under scrutiny. As one of the nation’s primary enforcement agencies, MACC’s visibility has increased with each general election cycle. Unfortunately, much of that spotlight is based on public sentiment rather than facts.
At its core, however, the issue is not whether the MACC investigates, but whether it can continue to do so without fear or favour. The most recent case attracting attention is the probe into former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, linked to alleged overseas assets.
Reports indicate that MACC is working with UK authorities, following the global exposure of offshore wealth in the Pandora and Panama Papers - where troves of documents, leaked in 2021 and 2016 respectively, revealed the hidden wealth of world leaders, billionaires and celebrities who used offshore companies to acquire mansions, private jets and stakes in companies.
Earlier this year, MACC summoned Mahathir’s two sons, Mirzan and Tan Sri Mokhzani, to declare their assets - amounting to RM246 million and over RM1 billion respectively. Unsurprisingly, the probe has drawn sharp reactions.
Supporters view it as a necessary step towards accountability, while critics dismiss it as politically motivated persecution. Mahathir himself has publicly denied owning assets in the UK and accused the government of vendetta politics.
To properly assess these allegations, one must consider MACC’s record beyond a single case. Over the years, investigations have cut across political divides. Prominent leaders from both government and opposition, ranging from Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Lim Guan Eng, Datuk Seri Bung Moktar, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri, to the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, have all faced MACC’s scrutiny.
The suggestion that only “one side” is targeted is inconsistent with the facts. Equally important is the principle of separation of powers. MACC’s jurisdiction is limited to investigation; the decision to prosecute lies with the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC).
Any suggestion that MACC alone determines who is charged ignores this fundamental legal structure. Prosecutions require the consent of the AGC and must withstand the scrutiny of Malaysia’s courts, which demand proof beyond reasonable doubt.
At present, the probe into Mahathir is still in the investigative stage. Investigations may either produce sufficient evidence for prosecution or conclude without charges. In either case, outcomes must be based on evidence, not sentiment.
Corruption cases conviction rate, reportedly above 80% in recent years, is telling. This level of success would be nearly impossible if cases were trumped up or politically fabricated. Far from proving bias, it suggests rigorous standards of investigation and evidence gathering that meet judicial expectations.
Perception vs Reality
Public scepticism, however, cannot be dismissed. Perception matters, especially when trust in institutions is fragile. But it is equally vital to distinguish between perception and reality. Allegations of political interference often serve as a convenient narrative for those under investigation, diverting attention from the substance of the charges.
As a criminologist, I argue that the debate must rise above partisanship narratives and be grounded in the broader pursuit of systemic integrity. Calls for reform are valid - compliance with international conventions, alongside continued collaborations with global bodies such as UNCAC and the UNODC, are all essential to reinforcing MACC’s credibility and independence.
Yet, to dismiss every investigation involving political leaders as mere theatre is to weaken public trust, erode the institution’s mandate, and ultimately undermine the very principle of the rule of law on which our democracy rests. Today, some quarters are questioning the MACC, particularly the Chief Commissioner, for what they perceive as his ambition in pursuing investigations involving Tun Mahathir and the late Tun Daim.
Yet such criticisms overlook a critical point. If these cases are not investigated while evidence is still available, the MACC would inevitably face future accusations of neglecting its duty when it had the opportunity to act. It is therefore imperative that the Chief Commissioner and his officers be allowed to discharge their responsibilities independently and professionally, guided solely by evidence and the rule of law.
Ultimately, no anti-corruption body anywhere in the world escapes criticism, especially when pursuing the powerful. Yet Malaysia cannot afford to reduce the fight against corruption to political point-scoring. The test of MACC’s credibility lies not in the noise of partisan accusations but in its ability to build cases that survive judicial scrutiny.
The public should judge MACC by its results, i.e., evidence-based investigations, successful prosecutions, and consistent application of the law, rather than by the rhetoric of those facing its probe. Strengthening institutional trust requires fairness, transparency, and resilience. That is where our collective focus should lie. – September 24, 2025
By Professor Datuk Dr Kassim Noor Mohamed, Vice-Chancellor of Enforcement, Leadership and Management University (ELMU) and Criminologist
