Of late, claims from politicians that the high-profile prosecutions of certain officials were politically motivated have threatened Malaysia’s constitutional foundations.
Some government figures have even labelled such prosecutions as political vendettas.
Such statements put into question key principles: the separation of powers, the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the rule of law.
The persistent use of the vendetta narrative – framing prosecutions as politically motivated attacks – further undermines these principles. It suggests that legal accountability can be dismissed as partisan retribution.
It would seem as if politicians in power are claiming a general immunity against prosecution.
The spate of prosecution withdrawals in high-profile cases – and the reasons given – could erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Consider the cases of former Prime Minister Najib Razak and Zahid Hamidi.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Najib’s prosecution, conviction and pardon have stirred unprecedented debates about the integrity of Malaysia’s judicial system.
As the controversy subsides, another crucial public discussion has emerged: the need to separate the attorney general and public prosecutor roles.
These two issues are not isolated; rather, they intersect in ways that highlight the challenges of ensuring accountability and justice in a politically charged environment.
The Najib prosecution
In Najib’s case, the charges were not baseless allegations by the new government in 2018. They were serious accusations backed by extensive evidence, including financial records and witness testimonies.
The case proceeded through a full trial and multiple appeals. At every stage, the courts affirmed the convictions, demonstrating that there was substance in the allegations that led to the prosecution.
The multi-tiered appeals process provides more than adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the accused.
Claiming political vendetta as the prosecution motive in such high-profile cases ignores these safeguards. It also trivialises the judiciary’s role in holding public officials accountable for their actions.
Flaws in vendetta argument
Labelling legal actions against officials of a former government as vendettas is not only overly simplistic but also logically flawed.
This argument assumes that any prosecution initiated by a successor administration is inherently tainted by bias, regardless of the evidence presented or the judicial processes followed.
It disregards the safeguards embedded in Malaysia’s legal system, including the multi-tiered appeals process. Remember, in Najib’s case, this process upheld the conviction at every level.
The notion that political motives negate the legitimacy of a prosecution ignores a core duty of any government. That duty is to rectify past abuses of power. Far from being an act of vengeance, prosecuting corruption is a necessary step to restore public trust and deter future misconduct.
If every legal action against former officials is dismissed as a vendetta, it creates a dangerous culture of impunity. It weakens the rule of law and emboldens future administrations to act without fear of legal repercussions.
Structural weakness
The controversy over Najib’s prosecution has revived calls for a key reform. This involves the separation of the roles of the attorney general and public prosecutor.
The attorney general currently serves as both the government’s chief legal advisor and the nation’s top prosecutor.
This dual role creates a conflict of interest, particularly in politically sensitive cases. It means he has to balance the duty to prosecute wrongdoing with the obligation to protect government interests. This is a balancing act that can erode public confidence in the justice system.
Adding to the debate is the case of Deputy PM Zahid Hamidi, who faced 47 charges of corruption, criminal breach of trust and money laundering. In 2023, the Attorney General’s Chambers controversially withdrew these charges, resulting in a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
Civil society and opposition leaders widely criticised the decision, asking whether political considerations had influenced the outcome.
The case has fuelled demands for reform. It highlights the potential for perceived conflicts of interest when prosecutorial decisions are intertwined with executive power.
Calls for reform in this area are not new but have gained renewed urgency. The government’s plan to separate the two roles shows it acknowledges the need to strengthen prosecutorial independence.
Proponents argue this reform is essential. It will ensure that decisions to prosecute are made based on evidence and law, free from executive influence. A clear separation will also safeguard the judiciary’s integrity by eliminating any perception that judicial decisions are politically driven.
Bridging the two debates
The Najib case and the debate on the attorney general’s role converge on the issue of public trust in Malaysia’s legal institutions.
The pardon granted to Najib and the attempt to frame his prosecution as a vendetta expose the vulnerabilities of a system where prosecutorial decisions can be perceived as politically influenced.
Similarly, Zahid’s case points to an urgent need for prosecutorial independence to ensure that high-profile cases are handled transparently and impartially.
Separating the attorney general and public prosecutor roles will address these vulnerabilities. It will ensure that high-profile cases are handled with greater transparency and impartiality.
Separating the two roles will also reinforce the judiciary’s credibility in politically charged cases. It will prevent future administrations from dismissing legitimate prosecutions as politically motivated.
Such a reform will not only strengthen the independence of the prosecution but convey a powerful message: no one – not even a former PM or a sitting deputy PM – is above the law.
The way forward
Malaysia stands at a crossroads. The Najib and Zahid cases have exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of its judicial system.
The Najib’s conviction showed the judiciary’s capacity to hold powerful figures accountable. Yet the subsequent pardon and political framing of these cases highlight the need for structural reforms.
Separating the attorney general and public prosecutor roles will help restore public confidence in the justice system.
Lawmakers and those enforcing the law must remember that justice is not merely about punishing wrongdoing. It is also about upholding the integrity of institutions tasked with delivering it.
In this light, ensuring prosecutorial independence is not just a legal necessity – it is a moral imperative to safeguard the rule of law and democracy.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
