YOURSAY | MACC is not the court of law

 

YOURSAY | ’Does Azalina have an agenda of her own?’

Lawyer confirms Azalina's letter on Nazlan probe, minister keeps mum

Sun: MACC is an investigative authority, not a court of law. It can find that there may be grounds to believe that the judge - Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali - may have breached the code of conduct, but its findings cannot be final.

Recall, MACC found many people to be likely guilty of corruption, but the cases were either never prosecuted or thrown out after trials.

So, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said, affirming the MACC findings does not mean a thing as far as guilt (or otherwise) is concerned. But it does sully the name of a judge who cannot defend himself publicly. That is not healthy for the judiciary.

The minister could have been more tactful in the way she responded to the defence lawyers and I cannot shake off the feeling that she has an agenda of her own. I truly hope I am wrong.

The courts have already found the MACC itself breached protocol when it took it upon itself to investigate the charge against a sitting judge without approaching Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

This trigger-happy attitude was lacking when numerous parties called for the MACC chief to be investigated when he allegedly breached the laws of the Securities Commission. So how do we treat this mess? Only Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim can answer this.

Jay Jay: MACC's opinion that there is a conflict of interest does not change the integrity of the verdict and judgment of the judge. Calm down, take a chill pill, and ask ourselves - even if there is a conflict (for sake of argument), does that affect the judgment?

To answer that all we need is to read his judgment (SRC case). I have read it from head to toe - it is a fantastically well-reasoned judgment. In fact, nine judges, at two appellate stages, reviewed his judgment (and evidence), and all of them, I repeat, all nine of them, found nothing wrong with the judgment.

This should put a stop to all the nonsense that jailed former premier Najib Abdul Razak is innocent because Nazlan is apparently conflicted. Please, let's not be stupid people and use our brains.

Even if MACC's opinion is true - that there is a conflict. So what? Conflict of interest, by itself, per se, means nothing and is not a crime or wrongdoing. The wider context must be considered, which is - did this conflict affect any outcome or lead to any corruption? The answer is no in our case.

Madani Malaysia: Najib’s lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah wanted Azalina to confirm if MACC found Nazlan to be in a conflict of interest and violated the judges' code of ethics. Azalina, notorious for one-line replies, responded "Queries are answered in the affirmative".

Honestly, what is going on here? Why are they engaged in such unproductive exercise? What is their connection to Shafee? Are these people along with Najib’s daughter Nooryana Najwa in a league to undermine the SRC verdict and/or defame/disparage Nazlan?

Is this what the Madani government stands for? The PM is hollering that his priority is to eradicate corruption. Are these people in the same book as the PM?

Not only are they politicising the issue, but they are also casting aspiration and risking the stability of the unity government by indulging in this kind of innuendo that serves no one other than the vested interest of the wrongdoers.

GanMu: The CJ had commented on the "curious" timing of publicising the probe before Najib's SRC appeal before the Federal Court last year. The speed with which it came up with its findings well before the Federal Court hearing casts doubts on its true intentions on the matter.

It was not done in good faith and hence it should be discarded and ignored. In any case, this is the opinion of MACC, which is not sacrosanct.

What really matters for public consumption in strict professional standards and respecting the independence of the judiciary in investigating sitting judges, is when the judiciary makes its judgment, if at all on Nazlan.

MACC has been grossly unfair to the judge, who was just carrying out his job. Nazlan, being the professional he is, would probably have declared all his interests prior to taking up his post as judge and even has been promoted to Court of Appeal judge.

To my mind, he certainly did not violate any ethics and if he at all did, that decision should be made by the judiciary. The minister should have stayed above the fray and should not have written to Shafee on the matter.

Legislators, the executive, and the judiciary's independence should be always upheld. No one should speak for the other.

I am Malaysian: If there is any immoral breach of protocol and conflict of interest, it is what the likes of Azalina have done by divulging confidential, unverified information to a convict's defence lawyer.

The guilt of MO1 (Najib) is manifestly and universally clear, with multiple convictions of accomplices to his crimes, and there is no ground for him to be acquitted or even granted a retrial on any technical impropriety, if any, that is undoubtedly immaterial in comparison with the crimes proven committed. May justice be served and not perverted.

BlueMouse0551: Does “conflict of interest” just arise after being convicted? Why not raise this in the beginning before the trial? Nazlan's employment and role in Maybank were within the knowledge of Najib and the defence lawyers before the trial.

I must salute Nazlan - he was not swayed by any powers and neither do I believe that there was any conflict of interest when he delivered his brave and courageous judgment. Najib's conviction in SRC is justice for the rakyat. - Mkini