Mechanisms to probe judges exist under constitution, says Azalina
PETALING JAYA : The government today reminded all parties that the Federal Constitution outlines clear mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct amid concerns over judicial interference and integrity.
Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said Articles 125(3) and (4) empower the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to establish a special tribunal to investigate allegations of misconduct against judges, on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the chief justice.
She said additional safeguards are provided under Article 125(3A), which allows the chief justice to refer breaches of ethics to the Judicial Ethics Committee, and Article 125(3B), which supports a written code of conduct, currently the Judges' Code of Ethics 2009.
'This framework ensures that the judiciary remains free from political or external influence, thereby upholding the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law,' Azalina said in a statement today.
'The executive and legislature have no power to interfere in issues of judicial ethics. This is essential to maintain public trust in the justice system.'
Azalina said the government acknowledged the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar during yesterday's judicial independence march and pledged to address them transparently and in accordance with the law.
She said the Bar would be invited to contribute to an ongoing comparative study on judicial appointments, led by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department, together with select committees from the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara.
'Furthermore, the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar must be examined in accordance with the Federal Constitution, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009, and all other applicable laws,' she said.
A document allegedly containing excerpts from a JAC meeting held in May went viral on social media last weekend, raising concerns from various parties.
The extract of the purported minutes said that the former chief justice had raised concerns about the integrity of a candidate for an administrative post in the judiciary.
Claims were made that the judge in question had once attempted to influence the outcome of a case in favour of a specific party, and had sought the transfer of a fellow judge for holding a differing view.
Police are investigating the alleged leak of the JAC meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act and two other laws.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
10 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
No solid evidence of Jho Low living in Shanghai, says Saifuddin
Two investigative journalists had claimed that Low Taek Jho is currently living in a mansion in Green Hills, an 'ultra high-end neighbourhood' in Shanghai. (File pic) KUALA LUMPUR : Police have yet to find any credible evidence to support claims that fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low, is currently residing in Shanghai, China, using a fake Australian passport. Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said Malaysian authorities were working closely with international enforcement agencies to verify Low's exact whereabouts. 'I want to emphasise that the ministry, through the police, is maintaining close and ongoing cooperation with international law enforcement agencies. 'So far, claims about his location and use of a fake passport have not been backed by any verified or credible evidence. 'These remain claims by the journalists in question,' he told a press conference after visiting the National Scam Response Centre at Sasana Kijang, Bank Negara Malaysia. The claims were made by investigative journalists Bradley Hope and Tom Wright, who said they gathered evidence from various sources and newly uncovered documents which showed that Low was living in a mansion in Green Hills, an 'ultra high-end neighbourhood' in Shanghai. They added that Low was using a fake Australian passport under the Greek name 'Constantinos Achilles Veis' to hide his identity. Hope and Wright also claimed that Low was now working as a 'behind-the-scenes strategist for the Chinese government'. His role allegedly includes helping sanctioned companies from China 'navigate difficulties around the world'. Hope and Wright are former Wall Street Journal journalists who broke many of the key early 1MDB stories and co-wrote the book 'Billion Dollar Whale' about the scandal. On Tuesday, Wright alleged that Low had used the fake Australian passport to register a company in the UK. The firm, called Wisdom Opensto Technology Service Enterprise Ltd, is said to have been incorporated on March 13, with a registered office in Cardiff, South Glamorgan.
Malay Mail
10 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
New reforms won't fix weak whistleblower protection law without ombudsman, civil society warns
KUALA LUMPUR, July 24 — The Malaysian government must introduce an ombudsman without delay to protect whistleblowers who raise the alarm on corruption, crimes or misconduct, experts and civil society groups have said. In a statement dated yesterday, these subject matter experts and civil society groups welcomed the government's recent tabling of amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) 2010 in the Dewan Rakyat, but said it should be improved. 'While the move is timely and necessary, the proposed reforms remain incomplete and require urgent refinement to ensure meaningful protection and long-term institutional integrity,' they said in a statement. The statement was signed by 13 partners to the All-Party Parliamentary Group Malaysia (APPGM) on Integrity, Governance and Anti-Corruption, which is a bipartisan 14-member group of federal lawmakers chaired by a Pakatan Harapan MP and with a Perikatan Nasional MP as its vice chairman. The 13 partners zeroed in on the proposed amendment to the WPA to create a 'Whistleblower Protection Committee', stressing that this should only be a temporary fix and must be replaced by an ombudsman. This is what the government plans to do by adding Section 5A to the WPA: 'Whistleblower Protection Committee' to oversee the Act's implementation and to get statistics on disclosure and complaints received. The committee's composition: Law minister to appoint chairman and maximum seven members; Committee chairman's term and members' term are a maximum three years, but they can be reappointed when their term expires. Civil society urges for ombudsman instead of temporary Whistleblower Protection Committee On July 22, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) M. Kulasegaran in the Dewan Rakyat said the Whistleblower Protection Committee is just a 'stopgap measure' until the Malaysian government introduces a new agency called the Ombudsman Malaysia. Kulasegaran said the Whistleblower Protection Committee is not meant to be permanent, and that a new law is expected to be created at the end of this year to introduce the ombudsman. He had also said that the ombudsman is expected to take over the committee's duties, and also have the added power to receive tip-offs from whistleblowers and also monitor the outcome of investigations by enforcement agencies. But in their statement yesterday, the 13 partners to the APPGM group said 'the proposed interim committee must not become a permanent workaround', and said an ombudsman must be introduced to replace it. Before the ombudsman is created, they said the interim whistleblower protection committee's members must not only be government insiders, but must include 'independent civil society actors, legal and governance experts' appointed through a transparent and criteria-based process. 'We reiterate our long-standing position: without an independent Ombudsman, the WPA remains structurally weak. 'The absence of this key institution continues to leave whistleblower protection vulnerable to selective enforcement and political interference. The establishment of the Ombudsman must proceed without further delay,' they said. Other amendments good In the same statement, the 13 partners to the APPGM group supported two other major amendments in the WPA (to amend Section 6, to add Section 11(1A)): 1. (Section 6 amendment) The existing WPA does not protect whistleblowers, if there are any written law that prohibits them from disclosing information related to the improper conduct (for example, the Official Secrets Act). The proposed amendment would allow whistleblowers to still be protected in Malaysia even if the information disclosure is prohibited by any law. What the 13 experts and civil society representatives say: They support the Section 6 amendment to ensure that WPA protections would override conflicting laws (including the Official Secrets Act and the Penal Code's Section 203A), as whistleblowers will remain at legal risk and the WPA's purpose would be defeated without this amendment. 2. (Section 11(1A) amendment) This proposed amendment seeks to empower the relevant enforcement agency to use its own discretion to decide that it will continue to protect the whistleblower, if the enforcement agency discovers during investigation that such protection needs to be given. What the 13 experts and civil society representatives say: This amendment is a welcome addition. The amendment gives enforcement agencies the discretionary powers to maintain protection for whistleblowers on a case by case basis. As a whole, the 13 individuals said the WPA amendments are the result of years of multi-stakeholder engagement, and cautioned against any regression to closed-door policymaking. 'The reform process must remain open, inclusive, and guided by evidence and international best practice,' they said, while also offering their support to help the government deliver a permanent and credible framework for whistleblower protection. The statement's 13 signatories are Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar; Tan Sri Nazir Razak; Datuk Hussamuddin Yaacub (#RasuahBusters); Professor Edmund Terence Gomez; Shah Hakim Zain; Maha Balakrishnan; Anas Zubedy; Nurhayati Nordin (#RasuahBusters secretariat); Cynthia Gabriel (C4); Pushpan Murugiah (C4); Badlishah Sham Baharin (Ikram); Aira Azhari (IDEAS); and Tharma Pillai (Undi 18). The WPA amendments were tabled at the Dewan Rakyat on March 6 and was passed on July 22, and will next be tabled at Dewan Negara. The WPA amendments will only become law if the Dewan Negara also passes those amendments, and after the amendments receive royal assent, are gazetted and take legal effect.
Free Malaysia Today
13 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Court removes Anwar, govt as parties in Mukhriz's tax bill suit
Mukhriz Mahathir is challenging notices issued by LHDN to him last year demanding that he pay RM5.02 million in tax arrears for 2017 to 2019. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court has removed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the federal government from Mukhriz Mahathir's suit challenging a RM5.02 million tax arrears demand. Justice Amarjeet Singh allowed an application filed by Anwar, who also serves as finance minister, and the federal government to be excluded from the proceedings, leaving the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) as the sole respondent. The court also fixed Dec 16 to hear the judicial review application on an inter partes basis. Anwar and the federal government had argued that their inclusion in the suit amounted to an abuse of court process, noting that the dispute centred on Mukhriz's tax arrears from 2017 to 2019. LHDN issued notices to Mukhriz on Sept 27 last year, demanding that he pay RM2.56 million for 2017, RM2.44 million for 2018, and RM16,826.37 for 2019. However, the court today refused to strike out a statement by Mukhriz alleging that a long-standing feud between Anwar and Mukhriz's father, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, might have contributed to the issuance of the notices. Mukhriz said that in 2023, Anwar made several adverse public statements about Mahathir, claiming that the former prime minister had enriched his children during his initial tenure in office. He claimed that the remarks were made to tarnish his father's credibility and as an act of revenge. A defamation suit brought by Mahathir against Anwar is ongoing in another High Court. Mukhriz alleges that LHDN miscalculated his tax liability. The former Kedah menteri besar wants the court to quash the notices issued to him for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 years of assessment. He secured leave to bring the judicial review proceedings in January this year. Mukhriz is represented by lawyer Syed Afiq Syed Albakri while senior federal counsel Nur Irmawatie Daud appeared for Anwar and the federal government.
