telegram中文群组索引（www.tel8.vip）是一个Telegram群组分享平台，telegram中文群组索引包括telegram中文群组索引、telegram群组索引、Telegram群组导航、新加坡telegram群组、telegram中文群组、telegram群组（其他）、Telegram 美国 群组、telegram群组爬虫、电报群 科学上网、小飞机 怎么 加 群、tg群等内容。telegram中文群组索引为广大电报用户提供各种电报群组/电报频道/电报机器人导航服务。

THE Kuala Lumpur High Court today granted an application by two lawyers and an activist to refer two questions of law, regarding the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation into Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Ghazali, to the Federal Court. 

The two questions are on whether criminal investigation bodies including the MACC are only legally permitted to investigate High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges who have been suspended under Article 125(5) of the Federal Constitution, and whether the public prosecutor is empowered to institute or conduct any proceedings for an offence against serving judges pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Judge Noorin Badaruddin ruled that the Federal Court is the correct and appropriate forum to hear matters that affect the judiciary as a whole, as the question arising in this matter relates to provisions of the Federal Constitution concerning the independence of the judiciary vis-a-vis the doctrine of separation of powers.

“It is apparent that the investigation by the MACC on a serving judge of the superior court is viewed by the applicants and undeniably by many quarters of the public as an encroachment of the separation of powers. The investigation is reasonably viewed as having given rise to the impression that the judiciary is under attack, which has a bearing on public perception and confidence in the judiciary.

皇冠现金网（www.hg108.vip）是一个开放皇冠正网即时比分、皇冠现金网开户的平台。皇冠现金网开户平台（www.hg108.vip）提供最新皇冠登录，皇冠APP下载包含新皇冠体育代理、会员APP，提供皇冠信用网代理开户、皇冠信用网会员开户业务。

“As the present matter is going on, this court takes cognisance of the fact as to the difference of opinions and views given on this issue, and this court cannot disagree that this is a matter of fundamental importance because it affects the judiciary as a whole. All these underscore the urgency of the matter.

“It cannot be denied that this court is empowered to determine the questions, but it becomes a question of concern of having to go through the appellate process on a matter that is important to the judiciary as a whole,” she said.

The judge said a definitive and final pronouncement by the Federal Court as the highest court in the land on questions arising herein that have a direct bearing on public confidence on the independence of the judiciary is therefore essential.

“The court is of the considered view that a definitive and final pronouncement by the Federal Court on the questions posed by the applicants will benefit both parties with a speedy and economic final determination of the proceedings. Thus, the application is allowed with no order as to costs,” she said before fixing October 19 for further case management.