21 JANUARY 2026
PRESS STATEMENT
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) welcomes the recent announcement from the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court, stating that a Special High Court shall be established to hear corruption cases and appeals from the existing Special Corruption Sessions Courts. This move has been a long-standing call from civil society and is a promising effort in the push towards eradicating corruption in Malaysia. However, it must be followed by broader reforms to the criminal justice system to ensure corruption offences can be prosecuted fairly and effectively.
The erosion of public faith in the rule of law can be linked to the various political figures who have been implicated in corruption cases over the past few years. Due to lengthy trials, exacerbated by a general backlog in cases being heard, there remains a perception of these cases remaining unresolved for too long. There exists a public interest in resolving corruption related prosecutions promptly, and thus this decision by the judiciary is timely. Establishing a dedicated division of the High Court to manage corruption cases will synergise with the existing role of the Special Corruption Sessions Courts and ensure a streamlined process of appeals.
This measure undertaken by the judiciary should serve as a reminder to the Madani administration to expedite its own commitments to introduce reforms such as the separation of the Attorney General and Public Prosecutor offices. The trust deficit mentioned above can also be traced to the numerous questionable decisions by prosecutors in cases involving political figures, such as:
- Najib Razak and Irwan Serigar Abdullah: granted a DNAA for six criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges involving the misuse of RM6.6 billion in government funds due to the prosecution having failed to deliver pre-trial documents as per Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code;
- Zahid Hamidi: His Yayasan Akalbudi case was classified as requiring no further action by the Attorney General’s Chambers, after he was previously granted a DNAA for 47 charges including CBT and money laundering;
- Najib Razak and Arul Kanda: In the 1MDB audit tampering trial, acquittals for corruption-related charges were left unchallenged after the prosecution failed to file their petitions of appeal in time;
- Adam Radlan: 12 corruption charges relating to the Jana Wibawa case were withdrawn and a DNAA sought after the prosecution accepted an offer to pay a compound of RM4.1 million;
- Lim Guan Eng: In the case of his purchase of a bungalow below market price, the prosecution applied for a DNAA almost 2 years after the charge, upon discovering fresh evidence.
These questionable exercises of prosecutorial discretion lead to doubt in the ability of prosecutors to carry out their mandate effectively, as well as the idea of a “two-tiered” legal system that favours the rich and powerful. Thus, the government must also expedite the creation of an independent Public Prosecutor office tasked with conducting criminal prosecutions. In order to reduce the risk of improper influence on prosecutorial decisions, appointment of the Public Prosecutor cannot be made on the unilateral discretion of the Prime Minister and should instead be made by Parliament. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has recently reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to this reform in theory, but details on the exact framework have yet to be made publicly known. We emphasise the importance of ensuring the independence of this new Public Prosecutor office, without which the reform is rendered meaningless.
Furthermore, a recent statement by MACC Chief Commissioner Azam Baki on the possible introduction of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) mechanism should be viewed with extreme caution. According to Azam, this framework shall enable individuals and corporate entities charged with mega-corruption offences involving sums of over RM100 million to settle their criminal penalties out of court without trial. If this sort of system is put into place, there would be no point in creating specialised courts – as the most egregious cases would not even appear before a court. The government must not allow this to pass.
Therefore, C4 Center urges the government to proceed in developing these much needed reforms in an open and transparent manner, with meaningful consultation of academics, experts, and civil society organisations.
END OF STATEMENT
Issued by:
Center to Combat Corruption & Cronyism (C4 Center)
For further enquiries, please contact:
c4center@gmail.com
019-216 6218
