Muda seeks court declaration MACC has no power to probe SRC judge

 

Muda is seeking a court declaration that MACC has no authority to investigate the judge that heard ex-prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s RM42 million SRC International corruption case.

The political party’s counsel, Lim Wei Jiet confirmed with the media that the originating summons was filed at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur two days ago, targeting MACC and the federal government as the two defendants.

The first declaration that Muda seeks is that the MACC has no authority and/or jurisdiction to investigate and/or arrive at a finding or view that serving judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court have breached the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 and/or was in a conflict of interest in presiding over a particular court case.

The second declaration sought is the MACC finding and/or view - that Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali had been in breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 and/or had a conflict of interest in presiding over Najib’s SRC International graft case - is unlawful and/or unconstitutional.

Lim today said that the lawsuit was filed due to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said’s letter to Najib’s lawyers on March 20.

The letter stated that MACC had concluded and/or had made a finding that Nazlan - now a Court of Appeal judge - had breached the Judges’ Code of Ethics and had a conflict of interest when presiding over the SRC International case.

Lim Wei Jiet

Lim said the suit is also in reference to MACC’s letter on Feb 20 to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, which made the same conclusion and/or findings.

According to a copy of an affidavit in support of the suit, Muda secretary-general Amir Abdul Hadi claimed that the letters reveal a serious transgression on the part of MACC as its powers to investigate are confined to offences under the MACC Act 2009.

Amir contended that the anti-graft watchdog does not have the jurisdiction, authority and purview, much less any expertise, to investigate and/or make findings on breaches of the Judges’ Code of Ethics or conflict of interest on the part of superior court judges.

Ulterior motive behind the leak?

He also claimed that the manner and timing in which the contents of these letters made their way to the public domain clearly demonstrated a lack of bona fide (good faith) and an assault against judicial independence and the separation of powers.

Amir said it is shocking how these sensitive and confidential letters could enter the public domain and questioned why Azalina saw fit to answer queries from Najib’s lawyers on any aspects of the MACC investigation - when these queries should be directed to and be dealt with by the antigraft watchdog exclusively.

He claimed this raises serious questions about the confidentiality of processes within MACC, and whether there is an ulterior motive for such a leak.

Court of Appeal Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali

Plus, Amir alleged that the reputation and integrity of a superior court judge has been irreversibly tarnished as a result of the leak, which purportedly happened before any conclusive decision on the part of Tengku Maimun was reached on whether there had been a breach or prima facie breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics.

“Taken as a whole, this amounts to serious intimidation and harassment against judges, as well as a malicious attempt to interfere with their duty to arrive at decisions and uphold the rule of law without fear or favour.

“If nothing is done to stop MACC and other investigative agencies from overstepping their authority and power - judicial independence, the rule of law and our criminal justice system as a whole is imminently threatened,” Amir claimed.

The High Court has fixed May 15 for case management of the lawsuit. - Mkini