`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!

 



 


Friday, April 17, 2026

The Ahmad Maslan doctrine: Innocence by attendance

 


Hear ye, hear ye! Gather round, good people, for today’s proclamation from the Umno-dominated Ministry of Alternative Logic.

Once upon a time, town criers in Shakespearean garb declared who was guilty, who was innocent, and who had merely stolen the king’s chickens. But in Malaysia, Ahmad Maslan’s microphone has replaced the crier’s bell, and the message is far more entertaining.

Ordinarily, there would have been a modern-day cry on the lines of “Houston, we have a problem”, but with the history of his extraordinary pronouncements, there was no cause for alarm.

According to the latest decree, he that stealeth and plundereth the wealth of the land is innocent - provided he stayeth to fight in court.

In other words, guilt is not measured by what you did, but by whether you had the stamina to stand up and defend yourself.

Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak

On Wednesday, Ahmad unveiled this revolutionary doctrine at the biennial general meeting of the Najib Razak Friends Club 87.

The Umno supreme council member declared, “Najib (Abdul Razak) is not guilty even though he is serving a sentence. If they are not guilty, why do they run?”

The logic is breathtaking. By such standards, prisons across the land are filled not with convicts but with misunderstood patriots who lack the courage to abscond.

The former prime minister, we are told, is the bravest of them all - marching in and out of court like a knight in shining litigation, confident that innocence is a state of mind rather than a verdict.

This is not law; it is theatre. A performance where guilt is rewritten as bravery, and innocence is declared by applause rather than judgment. Umno has spoken: guilt is for quitters, innocence is for attendees, and justice is whatever the party says it is.

Ahmad’s tale

But wait, some background. In 2020, Ahmad himself was charged with failing to declare RM2 million received from Najib to the Inland Revenue Board.

The money, believed to be proceeds from unlawful activities, arrived via a cheque from AmIslamic Bank Berhad dated Nov 27, 2013, which Ahmad personally cashed the same day. He was also charged with giving a false statement to the MACC.

Before entering chambers, Ahmad even read out a four-line pantun (poem) declaring himself innocent and a victim of tyranny. But the cries of innocence fizzled when the case came up for hearing the following year.

Deputy public prosecutor Mukhzany Fariz Mokhtar told the court the prosecution had applied for a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) on both charges.

Ahmad initially refused to pay a compound, but after charges were read, his lawyer sent a letter of representation agreeing to pay RM1.1 million.

Certainly, one good turn deserves another. And Ahmad is now returning the favour - rewriting Najib’s conviction into courage, and innocence into attendance.

In Umno’s theatre, the guilty are cowards, the innocent are convicts, and the bravest act of all is simply showing up for the matinee. Attendance, not evidence, has become the new gold standard of justice.

When Ahmad rewrites Najib’s conviction into courage, he is not merely defending a party comrade - he is defending the very logic that once saved him.

After all, Ahmad himself walked away from charges by paying RM1.1 million, proving that in Malaysia, guilt can be negotiated, innocence can be performed, and justice can be discharged without acquittal.

How do I compare thee…

Oh yes. We have to thank Ahmad for not reminding us of what Najib’s son had to say about his father.

Nizar compared his father’s imprisonment to that of Nelson Mandela’s experience, saying that he would rise above the challenges as the South African anti-apartheid leader did.

Nizar Najib

"This is what happened to Prophet Yusuf, who was framed on a false charge and was elevated to a ministerial level in ancient Egypt, after he was released.

"The same happened to Mandela, who was jailed for opposing apartheid and went on to become the South African president who reunited the country's people, upon his release.”

In a response, I wrote: “How do you compare a statesperson who stood up against an oppressive regime with a thief who plundered the nation’s wealth?

“Mandela fought for the end of apartheid, and his work inspired and continues to inspire others to stand up against oppression and fight for freedom.”

What will Najib be remembered for? He was already described as “kleptocracy at its worst” by former US attorney-general Jeff Sessions, and by The Economist as a “brazen kleptocrat”.

At home, the Court of Appeal described him as a “national embarrassment”.

For whom the bell tolls

Against such a backdrop, Umno’s “new” definition of innocence is not merely difficult to swallow - it is indigestible.

It asks the public to accept that serving a sentence is proof of bravery and innocence, that paying a compound fine is proof of integrity, and that showing up in court is proof of virtue.

In this upside-down morality play, guilt is no longer about the crime, but about the cowardice of running away; innocence is no longer about the verdict, but about the stamina to attend hearings.

It is a doctrine that stretches logic until it snaps, leaving justice gasping for air.

This is the true brilliance of Umno’s alternative logic: it transforms the courtroom into a stage, the pantun into a script, and the verdict into applause.

And so, when justice becomes performance, verdicts fade into applause - and Najib remains the star of Malaysia’s long-running legal drama. The audience may change, the script may evolve, but the show goes on.

In this theatre, innocence is not proven; it is proclaimed. And the bell tolls not for justice, but for the next act. - Mkini


R NADESWARAN is a veteran, award-winning journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT

One power, two claimants: Critics say JAC's constitutional legitimacy in doubt

 


The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was established in 2009 to safeguard judicial independence, yet the very body meant to depoliticise the bench is facing criticism over its legitimacy.

At a Malaysian Bar forum yesterday on strengthening judicial independence and the process of appointing judges, experts argued the JAC has overstepped its bounds, and that the executive’s grip on the judiciary remains intact.

Constitutional law expert Shad Saleem Faruqi said the problem is one of duplication, where the JAC has been handed a power that the Federal Constitution already gives the chief justice: advising the prime minister on who should sit on the bench.

According to Section 21 of the JAC Act (Jaca) 2009, the commission makes recommendations about judicial appointments to the prime minister.

However, Article 122B of the Federal Constitution states that, before judges are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the prime minister’s advice, the prime minister must consult the chief justice and other senior judges, with no mention of the JAC.

“Section 21’s constitutionality, in my view, is in doubt, as it has assigned (the commission with) a parallel task to the chief justice of advising the prime minister on appointments.

“So there are now two provisions. One empowers the chief justice to advise the prime minister. The other empowers the JAC to advise the prime minister,” Shad (above) said.

Shad, who served on the JAC from 2020-2022, argued that a body created by ordinary legislation cannot override the Constitution or usurp powers vested in the chief justice.

M Ramachelvam, co-chairperson of the Malaysian Bar’s civil law and law reform committee, echoed this concern, saying the Bar considers the JAC’s current framework to be constitutionally problematic.

However, he proposed amending the Constitution to formally incorporate the JAC’s role.

Ramachelvam, who is also president of human rights NGO Hakam, maintained that the JAC should channel its recommendations through the prime minister, who must then formally advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

He said this preserves the constitutional framework, as Article 40A(1) states that the Agong is bound to act on the prime minister’s advice, which in turn gives the recommendations made by the premier a legal force.

“We are a constitutional democracy and constitutional monarchy. So the role of the prime minister cannot be removed.

“In the sense that we can put limits on how he acts, how he tenders that advice and so on, but that formal act is through the head of government to the head of state. So the formal role of the head of government is not removed,” Ramachelvam added.

Executive interference

Other concerns raised at the forum focused on the prime minister’s continued influence over judicial appointments, as well as the structure of the JAC.

The JAC has nine members. Four sit on the commission by virtue of their positions in the judiciary - the chief justice, Court of Appeal president, chief judge of Malaya, as well as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak.

Judges at the opening of the legal year 2024 at Putrajaya

The remaining five are appointed by the prime minister. These include one Federal Court judge and four distinguished individuals who are not part of the executive or public service.

Since the prime minister’s five appointees hold a majority on the nine-member commission, those he selects effectively have the decisive vote in recommending who becomes a judge.

While the JAC conducts a secret ballot when deliberating on candidates - a measure designed to insulate the process from direct government interference - the prime minister’s structural majority means his influence over who sits on the bench remains considerable.


This concentration of power raises concerns about judicial independence, especially since candidates approved by the prime minister’s JAC appointees can hold key positions in the judiciary.

Shad also pointed out that despite reforms introduced under the Jaca, the prime minister still retains wide discretion in the selection process.

He explained that the JAC typically recommends three candidates for High Court positions and two for other superior judge positions. However, the prime minister can request additional names.

“In practice, this means the JAC may end up submitting up to six names, and surely that’s too much,” said the Universiti Malaya constitutional law professor.

Roadmap to reform

In response to these concerns, several reforms to the JAC were proposed to strengthen judicial independence and reduce executive influence.

They include restructuring the commission to include more diverse representation: three members appointed by legal bodies: the Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Society, and the Advocates Association of Sarawak, as well as the inclusion of the solicitor-general and a legal academic.

M Ramachelvam, co-chairperson of the Malaysian Bar’s civil law and law reform committee

Another proposal is to limit the prime minister’s power in the judicial selection process.

According to Ramachelvam, under this model, the JAC would submit only one name for each vacancy.

The prime minister could reject a nominee once, but only with written, reasonable grounds, while a second nomination by the JAC would be binding.

Currently, the prime minister is vested with the power to reject nominations without providing reasons.

The recommendations aim to make the judiciary more reflective of society by promoting diversity, along with structural changes such as separating judicial and legal services and abolishing probationary terms for judicial commissioners to strengthen their independence.

Last year, former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat opined that politicians pose the greatest threat to the Constitution, reaffirming her stance that the prime minister should stay out of judicial appointments.

Addressing a query from the audience at an Allianz Centre for Governance (ACG) event in Kuala Lumpur on Aug 19, she remarked that it is politicians themselves who endanger the sanctity and supremacy of the Constitution.

“The biggest threat would be the politicians. I’m so sorry, I think it would be best for me not to elaborate,” Tengku Maimun said with a nervous laugh, to a round of light chuckles from the crowd.

JAC controversies

The JAC has been embroiled in several controversies in recent times.

Last year, it became the subject of scrutiny after a Federal Court judge was accused of judicial interference during a commission meeting in May.

Queries by Malaysiakini to the judge in June 2025 led to a police investigation after the judge ordered an aide to lodge a police report.

Later in July the same year, purported minutes of the meeting leaked on social media.

The Palace of Justice in Putrajaya houses the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal

This led to a full-blown judicial scandal, with fears that the executive was trying to exert control over the judiciary, with the judge in question allegedly poised to become chief judge of Malaya and then the chief justice.

The scandal died down after then-Court of Appeal judge Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh was elevated as chief justice following Tengku Maimun’s retirement.

However, controversy reignited after Federal Court judge Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh was appointed to the JAC by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

The move garnered attention as it departed from the longstanding practice of assigning a senior Federal Court judge to the position.

Commenting on the issue later, Wan Ahmad Farid said the appointment was done with the prime minister’s discretion, and does not require consultation from any quarters, including the chief justice himself.

Wan Ahmad Farid also said the decision cannot be challenged. -Mkini