KUALA LUMPUR, April 20 — A former Malaysian Bar president said today the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has no authority to investigate allegations of conflict of interest against a sitting judge as the body is only mandated to probe prescribed corruption offences.

Lawyer Christopher Leong said while sitting judges were liable to be investigated by the MACC for alleged corruption as decided by the Federal Court in its decision earlier this year, the allegation of conflict of interest is an issue raised by parties in ongoing court matters to seek a judge’s recusal.

Leong was referring to the MACC’s probe against Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

Before his elevation, Mohd Nazlan had been the trial judge in the High Court that convicted former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of embezzling RM42 million belonging to state-owned SRC International Sdn Bhd.

"In its investigation into allegations of corruption against the judge, the MACC instead wrote to the chief justice about breach of ethics under Paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 and alleged conflict of interest, both being premised on the judge’s previous position as general counsel of Maybank.

"It is clearly ‘odd’ that the MACC did not say anything about the allegation of corruption in its letter to the chief justice.

"Clearly, there is no substance to the said allegation. MACC should have expressly said this,” he said in a statement here.

In the Federal Court’s February 24 judgment this year, it unanimously held that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s investigation against Mohd Nazlan did not follow proper protocol.

The Federal Court also ruled that sitting superior courts’ judges are not immune from criminal investigations or prosecution but stressed higher standards should be imposed upon criminal investigative bodies in light of judicial independence.

Leong said the MACC was therefore acting beyond its jurisdiction under the MACC Act and beyond its competence, while lending credibility to the Federal Court’s February 24 judgment highlighting the blatant probe commenced against Justice Nazlan that was done without regards to judicial independence.

In the court’s ruling, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat had remarked on the probe’s curious timing against Justice Mohd Nazlan which was done without the judiciary’s consultation and further cast doubt on whether investigation against Justice Nazlan is bona fide.

To note, Najib has also withdrawn allegations of bribery against Mohd Nazlan where he alleged the latter allegedly received RM1 million from fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low.

While making clear that he is not making any bribery allegations against the SRC trial judge, Najib had insisted that there is additional evidence to show a serious conflict of interest by Mohd Nazlan.

Leong said it was "outrageous” that such a serious and scandalous allegation against a judge could be withdrawn without consequences as the judiciary and the judge’s reputation have been affected.

On April 3, Malaysian Bar president Karen Cheah said the MACC does not have the powers to investigate alleged breaches of judicial ethics.

She also said that any such investigation amounts to an interference with the administration of justice, as it should be the role of the Judicial Ethics Committee instead to investigate and decide the ethical conduct of judges.

With the Court of Appeal and Federal Court having upheld Najib’s SRC conviction at the High Court, Cheah said the attempt to raise allegations against the SRC trial judge using the MACC’s purported letter to the chief justice was a "desperate” move to tarnish the reputation of a judge who had already been vindicated at all levels within the judiciary.

She further called for a stop to this "inappropriate and last-ditch effort to cast doubts on Najib’s conviction”.