.jpg)
KUALA LUMPUR – Political and economic observers have shared mixed views over the potential ramifications stemming from the Malaysian Bar’s intention to organise a gathering in protest against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation into Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
Senior fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research, Prof Azmi Hassan said that he feels the Bar should rethink its decision to stage the gathering, warning of how it could backfire by triggering doubts and negative perception towards the Bar.
“They need to rethink where their priorities are if the general population appears not to be too concerned as to why the MACC is investigating judge Nazlan.
“There could be negative perception coming from this, not only towards the Bar but towards the judge himself,” he said when contacted.
Azmi stressed that going ahead with the gathering could also serve to imply that the Bar is not an impartial body, and be suggestive of the notion that the body is trying to protect Nazlan, especially considering that he was the judge who convicted former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in 2020.
“The judge is not above the law. Yes, there are means within the judiciary to control the behaviour of judges, but this particular case involves the accusation of corruption, and MACC is the government agency tasked with investigating corruption.
“There would be no positives, but more negative impacts towards the Bar and the judge,” he added.
Investor sentiment at stake?
Also weighing in was economist and dean of the Institute of Postgraduate Studies at Malaysia University of Science and Technology Prof Geoffrey Williams, who agreed that the Bar should reconsider its plans to hold a gathering, warning that it could affect investor sentiment.
Williams said that those outside the judicial system would be left wondering if the legal system has its “house in order” as such protests are being organised by the Bar, suggesting their lack of faith in the system in which they function.
If it is seen that there is a dispute among lawyers themselves, then it will damage business confidence and investor sentiment, and add to a growing list of negative issues in the Malaysian investment scenario which the government is trying to overcome.
“The Malaysian Bar is ill advised to take to the streets on this, and it would send a very bad message about their professionalism and their own confidence in the system they serve,” he said to The Vibes.
Williams said a legal system that runs smoothly without such internal resistance would in return boost the confidence of investors looking for a reliable and trustworthy location to invest, especially on potential issues related to contractual disputes.
“So it is essential that there is an open and transparent legal system that people can understand. The law must be seen to be done openly, with credibility, accountability and transparency,” he said.
Bar merely highlighting ‘blatant interference’ with judiciary
Offering an opposing view was Singapore Institute of International Affairs senior fellow Oh Ei Sun, who lauded the Bar for pointing out what he called as a “blatant interference with the independence of the judiciary”.
Oh suggested that organising such a gathering would also serve as a reminder for Malaysians, who he said often forget or are unaware that their fundamental rights are being trampled upon.
He disagreed with the views of Azmi and Williams that organising the gathering would cause negative perception towards the Bar, saying it would instead be interesting to observe how the government handles and reacts to the planned gathering.
“This being a reversion to a regressive government, it is unclear what reaction, repressive or otherwise, would be imposed on this erstwhile legitimate exercise in democratic rights.
The Bar’s reputation has always been high in the eyes of the progressive citizens of this country anyway, so it’s just a matter of continuing their lofty tradition,” he said.
"One-sidedness in favour of progressive and liberal politics is by definition very preferable to closeness to regressive and conservative politics,” he quipped when asked to comment on being the minority view.
Last week, a Malaysian Bar emergency general meeting voted through a motion, which among others, included the proposal to organise a walk or gathering to protest MACC’s probe against Nazlan.
Bar president Karen Cheah had said that the walk and three other matters were passed as part of the motion, which included them possibly filing a suit challenging the legality of MACC’s investigation into Nazlan, and the option to advocate possible reforms to preserve the independence of the judiciary.
The motion also included endorsement for the Bar to call on Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun to take all necessary steps to protect the institution of the judiciary and the sacrosanct principle of the independence of the judiciary from such intimidation and interference, as the guardian of public interest.
Cheah had also revealed last Friday that an additional meeting among councillors was slated to take place last Sunday to decide details on the proposed gathering.
It is understood that another emergency meeting between councillors was held virtually on Tuesday evening, with arrangements about the gathering said to have been on the agenda.
Cheah has yet to respond to query attempts from The Vibes seeking to clarify the Bar’s plans on its proposed gathering.
At the end of last month, the MACC had said that investigation papers into Nazlan had been submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the next course of action after the judge was accused of having unexplained funds within his personal bank accounts.
At the same time, an application has been filed by lawyers Nur Ain Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai, and activist Haris Fathillah Mohamed Ibrahim seeking a declaration that MACC’s investigations into Nazlan were unconstitutional.
The case is set to be heard on June 23 by the Kuala Lumpur High Court. – The Vibes, June 1, 2022
