YOURSAY | Does MACC have the powers to probe a top judge?

YOURSAY | ‘Many citizens are wondering why MACC is missing the point.’

MACC: We've power to probe all public officers, including judges

Anon25: The MACC investigation was based on a dodgy news report by an infamous blogger based on extracts of confidential bank documents dated many years ago, which was totally unrelated to the judge's work.

Yet this was used by an NGO to demand an investigation into the judge, who had found former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak guilty of corruption.

And with that, MACC sprang into action and issued a statement that the judge was being investigated. Former prime minister Najib’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is also demanding a mistrial.

All this seems to have happened because of the smell of corruption surrounding MACC chief Azam Baki.

Vote4changejohor: Indeed, many citizens are wondering why MACC is missing the point.

The point is the complaint/allegation was brought by dubious sources and without any substantial facts, was played up by a notorious online site purportedly to try to damage the reputation of an esteemed judge.

So, we are thinking why MACC officers did not do due diligence and circumspection on this matter before making any announcement.

Federal Bakery: MACC's powers are not disputed. What troubles the public is the way they are exercised.

First, as a commission and not a department of any ministry, the MACC is required to show greater care and objectivity in exercising those powers.

The given powers do not include directions on how the investigation is to be conducted. It is here the MACC may have exceeded its jurisdiction.

If the power to prosecute is with the attorney-general (AG), the commission going public on an investigation may irreversibly harm the reputation of the person investigated even before a decision is taken to prosecute. And if taken, even before the trial.

Another area of concern is how they treat the different categories of public officers. To say that judges are included in the category does not excuse them from exercising a greater duty of care when this special group of officers are involved.

In this case, in the light of the judges’ role in probably the most important prosecution this country has seen, warning bells should have sounded that this report may be a set-up.

Recently, in a matter concerning the MACC, there were allusions to a conspiracy against the MACC. Surely, such a possibility against the judiciary should be more than obvious to the commission.

Yet another point about MACC's powers is that the commission owes a duty to the public that its integrity has not been compromised. Recent events leave this question in great doubt and the MACC is duty-bound to put its own house in order.

In my opinion, there are enough grounds to nullify any decision the commission takes on this matter.

Blue Mountain: The all-powerful Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also did not have the power to force Azam Baki to appear before it.

The case came to a happy ending with the conclusion of the Securities Commission's investigation which found no element of proxy trading, and the prime minister asking all Malaysians to accept the decision of the SC.

No one in the government is willing to open Pandora’s box as there may be too many skeletons inside.

Dr Raman Letchumanan: Once the image of the MACC chief is compromised, the integrity of MACC is thrown out of the window.

What is the meaning of "officers of a public body" if it excludes due process on the allegations against the MACC chief, while everyone else, including the prime minister or the chief justice, can be investigated under the MACC Act? Is the MACC chief not an officer of a public body?

No one doubts that any public officer can be investigated. Even the rulers have to subject themselves to a special court.

But as highlighted, a member of a judiciary holds a special revered position in the administration of justice. Extreme caution has to be taken to first establish the complaint is valid and watertight before any announcement is made. The police have yet to complete or even commence an investigation on the report lodged by judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

By announcing the probe prematurely, damage has already been done to the reputation and integrity of Nazlan and the judiciary as a whole.

Here we have a fugitive blogger, safely cocooned overseas from law enforcement, exposing the so-called misdeeds, and MACC openly announcing that an investigation is going on, based on “reports” lodged only a couple of weeks ago. Shouldn't MACC be more discreet and establish the veracity of the complaints first?

The blogger has exposed documents on an investment advisory assignment by Maybank Investment Bank to seek the viability of establishing SRC International. It clearly says the advisory does not include any legal advice, among others.

So how is Nazlan, as Maybank general counsel then, involved? The charges of abusing powers only happened after SRC was established and operational. Was Nazlan in charge of SRC then and diverted the funds? Will all businesses conducted by Maybank now be heaped on Nazlan?

There are precedences where misconduct by the judiciary has gone through a special process, like the VK Lingam case where a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) was established, and the expose by justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer where a tribunal was established.

As the chief justice said, the haste in investigating this case and announcing publicly even when findings are preliminary, points to intimidation and tampering in the administration of justice, as it involves high-profile court cases.

Real Truth: Yes, MACC has the power to investigate any officer for any criminality. This should be the practice, but how is it that their own boss was not investigated?

Any investigation against a judge may be construed as intimidation by a political entity or person who would benefit from such a disparaging complaint. Any blemish against the judiciary will undermine its independence.

Betul Malu Bukan Maluapa: Again, who has the power to monitor MACC? Is it the PM only?

Parliament should pass a law that MACC is answerable to Parliament and not any individual who appoints the MACC chief.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.