Is MACC’s investigation of a judge good precedent? – Hanipa Maidin

THE Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has been subject to a plethora of fierce criticisms when it decided to investigate the judge who convicted the former prime minister of Malaysia.

Those who support the action by MACC contend that the judge is not exempted from any criminal investigation. Hence, according to them, the MACC is legally justified in carrying out the investigation against the judge.

With due respect, the proponents of such an argument have, in my view, clearly missed the point.

To begin with, let us reiterate herein, loud and clear, that nobody is of the view that our judges are free from any criminal culpability.

It goes without saying that they are, like others, subject to law and order. By virtue of the doctrine of equality before the law duly enshrined in our apex law, the long arms of the law may still reach our judges.

Nevertheless, procedurally speaking, we first have to pass the following threshold should we decide to probe the judge.

Is it constitutionally proper for any serving judge to be subjected to any criminal investigation by any investigating agency such as the MACC?

Assuming we could still tolerate the action by MACC, would such an investigation not offend the doctrine of trias politica or separation of powers as well the notion of the independence of judiciary?

Like it or not, out of the three branches of any government – the legislative, executive and judiciary – we may only hear the principle of the independence of judiciary.

What does it signify?  Yes, it signifies the obvious. The sacrosanct principle of the independence of judiciary should not only be defended at all costs, but it must also be seen to be duly defended.

We don’t have to earn a law degree in order to appreciate the devastating repercussions on the notion of the independence of judiciary should we allow MACC to pursue its investigation against the judge.

Being an investigative agency, MACC should be fully aware that its investigation may finally bring it to the court of law.

Should that happen, can MACC duly guarantee that the trial of any case whose investigation is initiated by it, would be independently conducted by any judge without any iota of fear and favour?

Therein lies the thrust of such a principle.

In any case, MACC should not be unduly worried. The federal constitution has the necessary mechanism to deal with any alleged criminal misconduct by any judge. – The Vibes, May 8, 2022

Hanipa Maidin is the MP for Sepang and is a former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for Law