Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has signaled a mediation attempt by saying that he does not want to go to judges who have been found to have wrongly condemned him and then have started a record prison sentence.
The miscarriage of justice against him had clearly been overtaken in politics and he had previously chosen to demand investigation into the main agent in the case, lawyer Shafee Abdullah prosecuted, who had long acted as personal personal adviser to Najib Razak.
Claiming that he worked free of charge in the public interest, Shafee was exchanged unusually in the position of prosecutor in the case, which he carried out with much enthusiasm and turned down a Supreme Court decision on appeal to strike the political enemy of his boss. in jail.
It was later unveiled (first by Sarawak report) that Shafee received RM9.5 million in payments from Najib & # 39; s accounts from money derived from the 1MDB fund. It is something that Anwar would like to focus on, because Shafee still has to explain the money and why it was paid to him.
However, many are concerned that the judiciary has shown many signs of contamination in recent years and that Anwar's generous attitude must not be allowed to stand in the way of a thorough investigation of such matters. Unfortunately, few Malaysian institutions have escaped deeply rooted corruption that has been filtered from above and those responsible have to be removed.
Reforms can best be implemented if there is a good understanding of what went wrong and why.
One of the campaigning lawyers, Arun Kasi, pleads for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to fully investigate concerns about inappropriate political influence and manipulation of the judiciary and has even gone so far as to suggest that the Federal Court is suspended pending its outcome. . Referring to the incitement against Karpal Sing as one of the many troubling issues with far-reaching consequences, he says:
In Karpal's incitement case, the High Court spoke Karpath free without a defense case being filed because the Prosecution did not succeed in proving a prima facie case. The public prosecutor has lodged an appeal with the court of appeal … [which] reversed the decision of the High Court and referred the case back to the plea for defense …
In the second round, the Supreme Court condemned Karpal. In appeal against the conviction, the Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction by a majority of 2: 1 … The complaint of Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla was that a "senior judge" interferes with the majority decision …
A negative perception of the second appeal can also extend to the first appeal, whereby the Court of Appeal has ordered the case of the defense. This is particularly the case, given the broad definition of the Court's incitement. This decision actually brought freedom of expression within a very narrow border in Malaysia. Many politicians were charged with this decision and convicted of incitement.
The dangers of a non-independent judiciary or at least the perception of a non-independent judiciary are therefore clearly visible and have contributed to a ubiquitous sense of hopelessness and distrust towards Malaysia before GE14.
A commission of inquiry therefore seems to be a crucial step, which can only be preceded by the immediate abolition of oppressive laws, such as SOSMA, an unfulfilled promise that is a great shame for the Harapan government.