The Malaysian Bar has adopted a resolution today declaring that it has no confidence in Attorney-General Idrus Harun for his “abject failure” to defend the judiciary and uphold the rule of law.
This is in relation to attacks against the judiciary following former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s conviction in the SRC International case, particularly attacks aimed at Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who convicted initially convicted Najib at the High Court.
“The Malaysian Bar is dismayed with the attorney-general’s public silence and inaction in the face of such unwarranted attacks and allegations of corruption against judge Nazlan, and is a dereliction of duty by the attorney-general,” it said.
Idrus’ (above) tenure expires in September, following an extension granted on March 6.
The resolution today also gives the Bar Council the mandate to give notice to the attorney-general to bring contempt proceedings against those responsible for attacking the judiciary.
“Failing which, the Bar Council shall consider and, if deemed fit, commence such contempt proceedings or any other proceedings or actions in affirmation of the resolutions above,” it said, according to the text of the resolution published on the Bar’s website.
The resolution was adopted during an extraordinary general meeting today.
Malaysiakini has contacted Idrus for comment on the resolution.
MACC, Azalina also undermined judiciary
Meanwhile, the resolution also condemns Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said and the MACC.
It reiterated the Bar Council’s stance that the MACC has no power to investigate members of the judiciary, which should be under the purview of the Judicial Ethics Committee.
As for Azalina, the Malaysian Bar said the minister had undermined the judiciary’s independence by discussing the MACC investigation in Parliament and through a letter to Najib’s lawyers.
It pointed to Article 127 of the Federal Constitution and Standing Order 36(8) of the Dewan Rakyat, which stipulates that Parliament shall not discuss the conduct of judges of the federal, appellate, and high courts.
This is unless it is part of a substantive motion moved for that purpose.
In addition, Standing Order 23(1)(g) stipulates that parliamentary questions should not be drafted in a way that is likely to prejudice a case under trial or is subjudice.
On Feb 23, in response to MPs who raised the issue, Azalina told the Dewan Rakyat that the MACC had submitted a report on its investigation on Nazlan to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
This was before the court delivered its verdict regarding the investigation the next day, and on a review of Najib’s case on March 31. For the record, Tengku Maimun said the MACC investigation had not been done properly.
In a letter dated March 20 to Najib’s lawyers, which has since been leaked into public domain, Azalina said the response to all their queries regarding the MACC investigation is in the affirmative.
Sources told Malaysiakini Najib’s lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had written to Azalina asking whether the MACC had found Nazlan to be in conflict of interest when presiding over the SRC International case and whether it found Nazlan had violated the Judges' Code of Ethics.
“It is unusual for a minister to disclose or provide information in writing to a litigant or an accused person with regard to the conduct of an investigative agency, in this instance the MACC, or to its findings,” the Malaysian Bar said in its resolution.
Azalina had previously defended penning the letter, saying that she was merely discharging her duties as a minister and that her reply was in line with her parliamentary reply given earlier on Feb 23.
She also affirmed the matter is under the judiciary’s authority. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.