Nov 10 hearing for bid on legal questions over probe against judge Nazlan

The Federal Court today set Nov 10 to hear an application by two lawyers and an activist to refer two questions of law regarding the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) investigation against Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Ghazali.

One of the questions is whether criminal investigation bodies, including MACC, are only legally allowed to investigate High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges who have been suspended under Article 125 (5) of the Federal Constitution.

The other is whether the public prosecutor is empowered to institute or conduct proceedings for an offence against serving judges pursuant to Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution.

These legal questions were raised by lawyers Nur Ain Mustapa and Sreekant Pillai, as well as activist Haris Fathillah Mohamed Ibrahim in their originating suit against MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki, MACC and the Malaysian government, seeking a declaration that MACC's investigation against Nazlan was unconstitutional.

Lawyer Wong Ming Yen, representing the three plaintiffs, when contacted said the court set Nov 14 for case management at the proceedings before High Court deputy registrar Firdaus Sidqi Sharil Azli today.
 
On July 19, the High Court allowed the application by the three individuals to refer the legal questions to the Federal Court after holding that the court was the right and appropriate forum to hear and decide legal questions that could affect the judiciary.

In the originating summons filed on May 6, the three plaintiffs sought a declaration that the MACC has no right to investigate serving High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges unless they are suspended pursuant to Article 125 (5) of the Federal Constitution, or dismissed according to Article 125 (3) of the Federal Constitution.

They also sought a declaration that the public prosecutor is not authorised to initiate or conduct proceedings for offences against serving court judges and a declaration that the investigation against Nazlan was unconstitutional.

In a supporting affidavit filed with the originating summons, the three plaintiffs said the media had reported that the commission had commenced a probe against Nazlan over allegations of unexplained money in his account following official reports lodged with it on the matter.

They claimed that the purported investigation was a violation by the executive branch of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

Nazlan, who convicted former prime minister Najib Razak of the misappropriation of SRC International funds, recently lodged a police report over news articles alleging that he was being investigated for unexplained money in his bank account.