YOURSAY | ‘MACC’s actions are lending credence to possible false allegations.’
Anwar: MACC's 'interference' in judiciary goes against separation of powers
Anon25: Fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) who made that scandalous allegation against Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali is known as a hired scoundrel.
But is it not scandalous also for MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki to announce that he is investigating the judge? Because as PKR president Anwar Ibrahim has pointed out, he is violating the principle of separation of powers in so doing.
Azam is obviously trying to scandalise the good judge. Without this move, the allegations from abroad would not have mattered.
Constitutional Supremacy: Anwar is right. The separation of powers must be respected. The judiciary has its check and balance over allegations made. It can hold its own enquiry if there is any foundation to the allegations.
Raja Petra is a mercenary and discredited blogger. Sarawak Report has exposed his dealings where he knowingly makes false allegations against political rivals of those whom he receives funds from.
Thus, MACC should not have opened a file as this matter should be dealt with internally by the judiciary itself.
MACC’s actions are lending credence to possible false allegations. Moreover, the evidence against Najib is so overwhelming that no judge could have acquitted him.
Dr Raman Letchumanan: Ever since Nazlan made that astounding judgment convicting former PM Najib, he has been facing attacks from every corner and on every occasion.
As the attacks were rising in tempo, the judge was elevated to the Court of Appeal. Now, this is a gross injustice, an affront to Najib.
So, they had to find new ways of attacking Nazlan. Najib's counsel fired the first salvo in the media, that there is a conflict of interest with Nazlan being Maybank's counsel handling SRC's loans. This seemed to be a desperate attempt to implicate the judge.
But RPK then wrote that Nazlan is being investigated for an unexplained wealth of RM1 million in his bank account. Everyone thought that was a lie, a case of clutching at a straw and using underhand tactics.
But then, the MACC chief immediately confirmed Nazlan is being probed. That investigation is based on a report lodged by someone else (not revealed), not online accusations. It seems RPK already knew about the investigation and MACC is only confirming it.
In the meantime, Nazlan and the Federal Court have also made a police report. But we have yet to hear what actions are being taken. Why the pause here?
Given the senior position that Nazlan held in a major bank, RM1 million would not seem like 'unexplained' wealth. Najib was able to explain RM2.6 billion in his bank account with a PM's salary, and the then attorney-general cleared him.
The judiciary seems to be under renewed attacks for making some bold decisions recently. It is not always on corruption cases, but on religious issues too. So, there are people in authority who may not be happy with an active and independent judiciary.
As Anwar said, any judicial misconduct should be treated with care. I think the AG cannot be innocent in this current attack on the judiciary. He should have sprung into action to defend the judiciary whenever its image is tarnished. The judges don't have prosecutorial powers.
The AG was quick to jump on Malaysiakini for some anonymous third-party comments. Unfortunately, the judges found merit in the complaint, even imposing double the fine asked for by the prosecution.
Whatever misgivings we may have, the independence and respect for the judiciary should be strongly protected. The executive cannot be trusted with their reported daily malfeasance, the Parliament is tamed by the executive, and the only hope to save Malaysia now rests with the judiciary.
Sri Lanka is calling.
OrangeViper2887: RM1 million is nothing for a high-ranking bank executive. It’s not RM1 billion! The police should investigate the one who made such a report.
Why can’t the police also investigate the millions in Azam’s account via stocks and shares?
Sealthedeal: If the justice system is seen to fail, the Constitution itself fails and that always leads to criminality. The court cluster knows this and is banking on it. It is their only hope.
Their tactics directly challenge the Constitution and all that it stands for, including the monarchy.
Anarchy will come to Malaysia if the justice system fails.
AnthonyChan: The announcement of the probe on Nazlan is more like a warning shot to the other judges who are going to make their decisions on the cases that are ending soon.
Vijay47: In recent days, there were two events that directly or indirectly affect the nation as a whole, two serious matters, I may add.
The lesser of the two was the mass breakout from an Immigration detention centre where six people died, while the much more troubling matter was the investigation of a sitting judge. On neither issue did the prime minister of the country have any concern to express or even a comment to make.
The only statement made was by the home minister under whose patronage Immigration falls. In any other country where honour rules, the Immigration director-general would have been sacked; instead, he remains free as a bird to strut about in his pretty uniform.
The minister himself should have resigned. But I did say, “where honour rules”. Instead, Hamzah Zainudin made some truly obnoxious, arrogant comments which prove again that were it not for political affiliation, he was in truth destined to be a nasi lemak roadside hawker.
Then we have the attack on the judiciary. Even here, the prime minister at the high pedestal from which he surveys all that he rules had nothing to say. Once again, we see that he has not emerged from the stupor he has been languishing in all these months.
Azam says he was acting on a report received against Nazlan. Leaving aside the separation of powers, is that indeed the MACC protocol? Do you act in a similar manner on all reports received? Did you investigate yourself?
Chiak Beh Liao: Usually, they will go after the one who reported or who made the allegation. I suppose this is not the case here.
You know, I know.
