THE Federal Court has come to the defence of High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali who convicted and sentenced former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak by contending that the investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) into the former was done without following protocol.
Following this, a seven-person bench chaired by Chief Justice (CJ) Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat unanimously ruled that the anti-graft body carried out the probe against Nazlan who is now a Court of Appeal judge without consulting the CJ beforehand.
Recall that the defence in Najib’s SRC International Sdn Bhd embezzlement case has pointed out that Nazlan had a role in the events linked to the charges faced by the now-incarcerated former premier, hence he is deemed to have a conflict of interest when presiding over the trial.
Lead defence counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik had noted that during Nazlan’s tenure as Maybank’s general counsel and company secretary from 2006 to 2015, the bank had given a RM140 mil loan to Putra Perdana Development Sdn Bhd (PPD) in which SRC was a beneficiary in addition to a RM4.17 bil loan to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) for the acquisition of Tanjong Energy.
This would have made the judge a potential witness in both the SRC and 1MDB trials, according to Hisyam.
In reading out the observation of the bench, Tengku Maimun further highlighted the “curious” timing of publicising that the probe had been completed prior to Najib’s SRC appeal before the apex court last year.
Sitting alongside Tengku Maimun were Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, as well as Federal Court judges Datuk P. Nallini, Datuk Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Datuk Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang.
“While the Federal Constitution empowers criminal investigation agencies such as MACC to investigate sitting judges as well as allow the Public Prosecutor to institute criminal court proceedings against such judges, those powers must be exercised in good faith and in genuine cases,” Malaysiakini cited Tengku Maimun as saying when reading out the Federal Court ruling.
According to her, this is important to ensure the judiciary is able to carry out its functions freely and independently from external influence.
“It appears to us that in considering the sacrosanct of judicial independence, the Federal Constitution implies a higher standard on investigative bodies when investigating judges are being investigated,” she pointed out.
“If it can be demonstrated that the investigation was done for collateral purposes, that investigation can be set aside when judicially reviewed.” – Feb 24, 2023
