Nothing ‘personal’: Malaysian Bar not against Zahid, Najib; court challenges law-based, president says

KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — The Malaysian Bar, a professional body which represents all of Peninsular Malaysia’s lawyers, is not political or partisan, and instead makes its stand based on the law, its president Anand Raj said.

Directly addressing the Malaysian Bar’s court challenges or positions in cases involving Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi and former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, he said these challenges are based on legal principles.

It could be any politician, and Bar would still have challenged that DNAA

While there had been other trials where the accused were released from charges via a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA), Anand said Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case was unusual as the prosecution requested for a DNAA at a late stage “after so much effort” had been made.

“So in the DPM’s case, it’s very unusual, 99 prosecution witnesses, 15 defence witnesses, so much time and taxpayer money spent, and to request for DNAA at that stage is very unusual,” he told Malay Mail, explaining why the Malaysian Bar challenged it in court.

“And we would have taken it up, whoever the politician was, from whichever party he or she was from, it’s not personal against Zahid,” he said.

He contrasted Zahid’s case with simpler cases which do not involve politicians and where there are fewer witnesses testifying, and where the prosecution feels the right thing to do is to seek a DNAA following new discoveries.

The Malaysian Bar currently has two separate court challenges against the Attorney General’s (AG) decisions: His September 2023 request for DNAA in Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi trial; and his January 2026 classification of the case as “No Further Action” (NFA).

Malaysian Bar took position that favoured Najib too, because it’s not about him 

As for Najib, Anand said the Malaysian Bar had taken positions on law that could be seen as against and favouring the former prime minister in different cases, as it is simply not about him.

For example, the Malaysian Bar agreed with the Federal Court’s 2022 decision that there should be no postponement of Najib’s appeal against his conviction in the RM42 million SRC International Sdn Bhd trial, as the hearing date was scheduled months before.

“But that should not be perceived that we are against the former prime minister,” he said.

He pointed out that at the Federal Court hearing of Najib’s constitutional challenge against the “pay first, dispute later” system in Malaysia’s income tax law, the Malaysian Bar had appeared in court as an “amicus curiae” to similarly argue that this system was unconstitutional. 

Ultimately, the Federal Court in October 2023 disagreed with both the Malaysian Bar and Najib, ruling that the law that enables the “pay first, dispute later” income tax system is constitutional and also highlighting available safeguards.

“On the one hand we took a position which the former prime minister might not have liked; in the other situation, we took a position which the former prime minister might have preferred that we take,” he said, stressing that this is because the

Malaysian Bar decides based on the law and not the individual.

Why the Malaysian Bar is not political 

Anand explained that the Malaysian Bar is not political as it is a separate entity from its members who all act in their personal capacity — including lawyers who choose to go into politics; become MPs; act in court for their clients or represent politicians.

Anand said the Malaysian Bar would always try to engage and discuss first, but may sometimes refer matters to a court for a decision.

The Malaysian Bar’s court cases involving public interest issues would generally be filed against the government, with Anand saying that the public may view this to be a “confrontational” approach when it is not.

“We are not political, we stand up for law and justice. But if we find that something is not consonant with law and justice, the person or body on the other side is often the government which does have political objectives. But we don’t challenge them on their policies, we challenge them on law and justice.

“So there may be this tendency to wrongly perceive that as political action — it’s not. It has to be consonant with law and justice, that’s how we approach it,” he said.

“We never go to court with a certainty of victory, but we go to court very clear in our mind that we are upholding the cause of justice, and that certain things need judgments, and these judgments are recorded for posterity,” he said.

Even though there have been times when the Malaysian Bar lost its court challenges, Anand said it would continue to take up cases “where principle and the rule of law requires us to do so” regardless of the outcome.

For example, the Malaysian Bar had filed a court challenge against the police stopping lawyers from marching to Parliament during the “Walk for Judicial Independence” in 2022, as it viewed the police’s actions as going against the Peaceful Assembly Act.

“But one of the important things about the case, it’s not just us, and that particular assembly, but whatever comes out of that case will benefit anyone else who wants to exercise their constitutional rights under the Constitution and the Peaceful Assembly Act.

“It is also a case that a precedent needs to be set, and when we do that, it’s not just for whether what we did was right — which we know was right — but also the law needs clarity, so that anyone else in a similar position can get to that clarity from that case,” he said of this case which is now at the Court of Appeal.

He said this was also why the Malaysian Bar appeared as amicus curiae in activist Amir Hariri Abd Hadi’s case, where the Federal Court in 2025 struck down the Peaceful Assembly Act’s Section 9(5) — which makes it a crime to not give five days’ notice to the police before a peaceful rally — as unconstitutional.

According to the Malaysian Bar, it has been allowed to appear as amicus curiae in 12 public interest cases to assist the courts on significant legal and constitutional issues.

Is the Malaysian Bar vocal enough?

“There will always be some who say that we do too much, we are like a political party, that’s incorrect; and there will always be some who say we do not do enough,” Anand said.

In response, Anand said the Malaysian Bar will always make a stand for law and justice, but said this would also depend on factors such as whether this falls under its scope or not.

“We can’t always help what 35 million Malaysians think, we cannot possibly control what 35 million Malaysians think.

“So many Malaysians may expect us to get involved in matters where we should not be or need not be involved, and if we don’t take a position, it’s seen that we have failed to act.

“That’s an unfair criticism. There are many things that may not relate to law or justice, and it may limit our role and our ability to say anything, so we are mindful of this,” he said.

He said there are also situations where other bodies are the ones that have a role to play, such as the judiciary being the one that decides on disputes, or the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) being the one that prosecutes and intervenes.

“Sometimes it is said the Bar doesn’t, when actually it might have been the AG’s role,” he said, noting for example that it is actually not the Malaysian Bar’s role to lead the defence of the judiciary from attacks against the courts.

“If the attacks on the judiciary are contemptuous or border on contemptuous, it is the Attorney General’s Chambers’ role to step in first, ahead of us. The Attorney General’s Chambers have not always done that and that has forced us to step up.”

When does the Malaysian Bar choose to speak up? 

Anand explained that the Malaysian Bar would only express its views when there is a legal or justice element in an issue, especially when there is a tendency for injustice to happen or if there is a need to state what is legally right.

“When something comes up, we must first look at what is the law and justice part, and is it going in the right direction or not. If it’s not going in the right direction, is it a relatively minor thing or could it turn into some injustice?

“If the propensity for injustice is there, then we may need to say something, even though it (law and justice) may not be the central issue.

“So we are not the government of Malaysia, we do not collect taxes, we do not have unlimited resources. We need to be involved where we need to be involved, not in every little thing where it’s topical but the law and justice component of it is either not there or very small. So we have to act within our limits, but we will always stand up for law and justice,” he said.

He also cautioned against the idea of expressing opinions on whether something is morally wrong or right, as public perception of morality could change significantly over time, saying that “morals are a very dangerous basis on which to take a position because they keep changing”.

As for issues with racial or religious elements, the Malaysian Bar would similarly take a position if there are any legal elements, especially when there is propensity for injustice or if there is a need to state the correct legal position, Anand said.

Saying that politicians can have debates but should be cautious not to inflame the situation, Anand said it would be the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) that should look at whether there is a need to press charges and if it had done enough over such inflammatory actions.

“That falls outside our role, we are not the prosecutor, we do not have prosecutorial powers, we have no investigative powers for that matter,” he said.