MARCH 17 ― Malay Mail reported yesterday that the judiciary has lodged a police report to enable investigations on criminal defamation on allegations against the judge who had heard former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s trial on the misappropriation of RM42 million from former 1Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) unit SRC International Sdn Bhd.
The allegations claim that the judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali ― now a Court of Appeal judge ― was involved in both the 1MDB and SRC scandals. According to the Chief Registrar’s Office, the allegations would interfere with the courts’ administration of justice.
“It is notified that the statements that were published in those articles contain a few matters which are believed would interfere with the administration of criminal justice and this country’s judiciary,” it said in a statement.
In its report, the Malay Mail has also raised the current curiosity behind Nazlan’s association with Maybank. News reports in August 2018 had already reported that Nazlan had previously worked in Maybank, and had also specified that his past positions at Maybank included being the bank’s general counsel and head of its corporate and legal services.
Indeed.
Nazlan’s past positions at Maybank are known and within the public domain. The bank’s annual reports from 2006-2015 duly identify Nazlan in the bank’s corporate information.
In the Annual Report 2006, Nazlan was the company secretary.
In the Annual Report 2013, Nazlan was the Group General Counsel and Company Secretary.
So, what’s shocking about Nazlan?
Lawyers will tell you that the real test to be applied in dealing with recusal of a judicial officer is the real danger of bias test which was laid down by the Federal Court in the case of Mohd Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321 and Dato' Tan Heng Chew v Tan Kim Hor [2006] 2 MLJ 293.
In a later decision of the Federal Court in Mukhtar bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor [2009] 2 MLJ 139, the Court even gave clear directions to all courts below that when dealing with the issue of judicial bias involving an officer from the judicial and legal service, the paramount consideration for the court to consider is whether there is any real danger of bias.
The test is whether there is any real danger of bias.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or organisation and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.