IGP: Police investigating purported leak of judicial meeting minutes, witnesses to be called in
In a statement this evening, Mohd Khalid said the probe will focus on the disclosure and circulation of classified information, both within internal channels and on social media platforms.
'The police will call in all relevant witnesses to assist with the investigation,' he said.
He also reminded the public not to share any documents or information marked as confidential, adding that firm action will be taken against anyone found to be involved.
Earlier today, Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil said that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will discuss allegations surrounding the purported leak with Cabinet members next week.
A purported excerpt of the JAC's meeting minutes from May was said to have been leaked on social media.
The post has since been taken down on Reddit, but snapshots of the post are reportedly circulating on other social media platforms such as Facebook and X.
The purported leak came hot on the heels of allegations that there had been attempts to influence the appointments of new judges, a claim that had prompted nine government backbenchers to call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
36 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
China hails ‘strategically valuable' Russia ties in Lavrov visit
Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov visited Beijing after a trip to North Korea. (EPA Images pic) BEIJING : Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi hailed Beijing's 'strategically valuable' relations with Moscow as he met his Russian counterpart against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and turbulent ties with the US. Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov was visiting Beijing after a trip to North Korea, where he received assurances of support for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Wang told Lavrov on Sunday that 'China-Russia are the most stable, most mature and most strategically valuable relationship between major powers in the world today', according to a Chinese foreign ministry readout of their meeting. 'The current focus is to… deepen comprehensive strategic cooperation, promote each side's development and revitalisation, and jointly respond to the challenges brought by a turbulent and changing world,' Wang said. The two ministers 'exchanged views on the Korean peninsula, the Ukraine crisis, the Iranian nuclear issue and other matters', the Chinese statement said. It did not mention ties with Washington, which Moscow said was also on the agenda. The Russian foreign ministry said Lavrov and Wang also discussed other 'burning issues', including the war in Gaza. China, a diplomatic and economic ally of Moscow, claims to be neutral in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, it has never denounced Russia's 2022 invasion nor called for it to withdraw its troops, and many of Ukraine's allies believe that China has provided support for Russia. Beijing regularly calls for an end to the fighting, while also accusing Western countries of prolonging the conflict by arming Ukraine.
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Govt to decide on Sabah's 40% revenue entitlement on Sept 12, says Fadillah
Deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof said the proposal, submitted by the Sabah government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : The federal government will decide on Sabah's proposal to reclaim a 40% net revenue entitlement at the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) meeting scheduled for Sept 12, says deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof. He said the proposal, submitted by the state government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution and will be brought to the prime minister's attention at the meeting, Sabah Media reported. Fadillah, who chaired a special MA63 technical committee meeting in Kota Kinabalu today, said the session was focussed on Sabah's constitutional revenue claims and possible interim solutions. 'We've heard the presentations and proposed solutions from the Sabah government. These proposals have also received feedback from the finance ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers at the federal level,' he was quoted as saying. Fadillah also acknowledged the ongoing challenge by the Sabah Law Society, which may have legal implications. 'Therefore, we must proceed cautiously, but our goal is to reach a mutually agreed solution outside of court,' he said. Asked whether a final decision could be expected before Malaysia Day, he did not give any confirmation but reiterated that the federal-level meeting was already fixed for Sept 12. The revenue sharing formula has been a contentious issue for decades. Sabah politicians have called for the federal government to honour the state's entitlement to 40% of the amount which exceeds the net revenue derived in 1963. Use of the formula has been suspended since 1974, with the federal government paying increased special grants to Sabah and Sarawak.
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory
From Apandi Ali It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment. Let's be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments. Section 27, titled 'Request for further selection by the prime minister', says the 'prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration'. Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC's recommendations. In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: 'The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.' Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made? The deafening silence over real violations What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness'. This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip. The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes. The JAC's recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required. According to the STF report: 'If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request. 'Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.' Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn't merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach. The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya. After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names: Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya. Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then? A convenient crusade for 'judicial integrity'? It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process. This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister's Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would 'give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!' And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity. Enough with the double standards The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia's legal-political culture. This isn't about upholding the law. It's about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence. If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives. Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
