KUALA LUMPUR: Muda has failed in its legal attempt to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) probe on Court of Appeal judge Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
On Wednesday (Jan 17), High Court judge Justice Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid dismissed Muda's application on the grounds that the application did not have merit.
He said the proposed questions were academic since the MACC probe has been superseded by the Federal Court's decision in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's SRC International Sdn Bhd case, which was presided over by Justice Mohd Nazlan.
"Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the proposed questions of law should not be entertained by this court nor referred to the Federal Court under Section 84 of Act 91 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964," he said.
Justice Ahmad Kamal also said that the power to interpret constitutional provisions is not exclusively given to the Federal Court.
"Under the Constitutional scheme, the Federal Court is generally a court of last resort for all Constitutional questions. Therefore, this court finds that the applicant's application has no merit in law and is hereby dismissed," he added.
The court did not make an order as to costs.
It also fixed Feb 6 for case management.
Muda had first filed an originating summons on April 12, 2023 to seek a declaration that the MACC has no authority or jurisdiction to investigate a finding or view that serving judges of the higher courts were in conflict of interest in presiding over a particular court case.
The lawsuit is in relation to a letter by the MACC that went viral on social media which implicated Justice Mohd Nazlan as breaching the Judges' Code of Ethics.
Justice Mohd Nazlan - then a High Court judge - had convicted Najib in the SRC International case and sentenced Najib to 12 years' imprisonment and a RM210mil fine in the case.
On April 25, 2023, Muda filed the application to refer constitutional issues to the Federal Court to determine whether the MACC has the authority to investigate a serving superior court judge for breaching the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 and presiding over a case despite a conflict of interest.
