PETALING JAYA: An aide to Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said confirmed that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) had responded to queries made by Najib's lawyer on the MACC probe into Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.
"The letter sent by the Minister's office dated March 20, 2023, is legitimate and in response to a letter sent by Tetuan Shafee & Co to her," said the aide.
In the letter dated March 20, Azalina told Najib's lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah that she could respond in the affirmative to three questions contained in his letter dated March 15, including whether Justice Nazlan had a conflict of interest and breached the judicial code of ethics
She said this was based on a report of MACC’s findings dated Feb 20, which the agency had extended to her.
In her letter to Shafee, Azalina said: “I can reply that the answers to the questions (you have set out) are in the affirmative.”
However, in order to obtain a copy of the outcome of the report, she urged Shafee to lodge a request with the MACC as it was classified as confidential.
Azalina was responding to a letter from Najib’s solicitors dated March 15 inquiring whether the MACC had written to Chief Justice Tengku Tun Maimun Tuan Mat to recommend that disciplinary proceedings be taken against Justice Nazlan in relation to his conduct in the SRC case.
On Feb 24, a seven-member panel of the Federal Court, led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, held that the MACC's investigation into Justice Nazlan was done without following proper protocols.
ALSO READ: Najib to serve out jail term
The Chief Justice also questioned the timing of the investigation, which was done on the eve of Najib's final appeal to overturn the 12-year jail sentence and RM210mil fine for the misappropriation of SRC International funds.
Justice Nazlan was the High Court judge who convicted and sentenced Najib to 12 years in jail and a RM210mil fine for misappropriating RM42mil of SRC International Bhd funds.
Tengku Maimun said even though investigative bodies were constitutionally entitled to investigate superior court judges, it must be exercised in good faith and only in genuine cases.