Lawyer Haris Ibrahim and two others have initiated legal action against the MACC and the government over the probe into Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
Haris had recently disclosed that he was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer and might have only a year left to live.
However, that has not stopped him from fighting for what he believes in, having filed an originating summons alongside lawyers Nur Ain Binti Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai against the MACC, its chief commissioner Azam Baki, and the federal government.
The lawyers seek to declare that the MACC was not entitled to investigate judges unless they have been suspended or removed.
It also seeks a declaration that a public prosecutor is not empowered to institute or conduct any proceedings for an offence serving judges of a court and that investigations against Nazlan were unconstitutional.
In a statement prepared by their solicitors Messrs Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the lawyers said they had also filed an application to refer two constitutional questions in relation to the reliefs sought by the federal court.
The MACC has confirmed it had opened an investigation paper into Nazlan on Apr 23, following a report lodged by Persatuan Sahabat Ulul Amri Malaysia (PSUAM) based on allegations contained in former Goldman Sachs banker Tim Leissner’s testimony in a US court.
According to the group, Leissner’s testimony linked Nazlan to 1MDB’s deal involving Tanjung Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd in 2012.
At the material time, Nazlan was part of Maybank. He joined the judiciary in 2017 as a judicial commissioner.
Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s legal team has also tried to discredit Nazlan by claiming that he had a conflict of interest in the 1MDB case.
Nazlan, when he was a High Court judge in 2020, sentenced Najib to 12 years in prison and RM210 million for corruption, abuse of power, and money laundering.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision last year. Najib is appealing the case in Federal Court.
The trio of lawyers said MACC’s investigation into Nazlan was a breach of the separation of powers between the executive branch and the judiciary.
“The Federal Constitution guarantees each of us access to justice administered by a judiciary that is free from interference of any sort. The Constitution guarantees all of us equality before the law and the equal protection of the law.
“It is not our view that judges of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are immune from criminal investigation or prosecution. Like all of us, they must be held accountable for any crimes they may have committed.
“However, the power to investigate and institute criminal proceedings must be balanced against the need to ensure public confidence in the judiciary,” they said.
They alleged that the federal government and attorney-general agree with MACC’s conduct due to their silence on the graft buster’s assertions that it is entitled to investigate the Court of Appeal judge.
“The judiciary is therefore left without any recourse as it is in no position to descend into the arena and seek the necessary declarations of its own accord.
“We were therefore compelled by circumstance to have these important constitutional issues determined,” they said.
The MACC previously said it had the power to investigate all public officers, including judges.
It added that in line with the principle of separation of powers, MACC would submit the investigation paper to the Attorney-General’s Chambers when completed to decide whether to press charges or otherwise.
The MACC said that they had investigated judges in the past and all the investigation papers were submitted to the AGC for evaluation.
On the probe into Nazlan, the commission said they had received three reports against the judge so far, and the investigation is still in its preliminary stage.
The reports were lodged on March 15, April 23, and April 27 this year. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.