Coalition: Parliamentary scrutiny vital for constitutional safeguards, public confidence
PETALING JAYA: A coalition of legal experts, former judges and civil society leaders has called on Parliament to introduce formal oversight in the appointment of the public prosecutor (PP), warning that the absence of scrutiny could weaken constitutional safeguards and erode public confidence in the justice system.
In a joint statement signed by 21 individuals, the group welcomed the government’s proposal to separate the roles of attorney-general and public prosecutor under the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2026, describing it as a long-overdue reform.
However, they cautioned that the current draft falls short by excluding parliamentary checks and balances.
“The public prosecutor wields extraordinary powers, including the sole authority to initiate, conduct and discontinue criminal prosecutions.
Given this immense responsibility, the appointment process must be transparent, merit based and insulated from undue influence,” the statement said.
Under the Bill, the Yang di Pertuan Agong would appoint the PP on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), after consulting the Conference of Rulers.
While this marks a shift away from prime ministerial control, the group argued that the process remains largely insulated from meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.
They stressed that parliamentary involvement would reinforce, not undermine, the doctrine of separation of powers.
“In a Westminster system, Parliament’s role is not confined to lawmaking. Oversight of executive action is a core function that strengthens democratic accountability,” they said.
The group rejected claims that scrutiny would be unconstitutional, noting that the Federal Court’s landmark Semenyih Jaya ruling has been misinterpreted.
“That decision concerns judicial independence. It does not prohibit Parliament from scrutinising executive appointments,” they explained.
They emphasised that they are not proposing for Parliament to appoint the PP, but rather to play a structured oversight role – vetting candidates, assessing qualifications and ensuring adherence to standards.
Such practices, they noted, are common in jurisdictions like Canada, Germany and Kenya, where legislative scrutiny helps distribute accountability and reduce risks of undue influence.
Failure to introduce oversight, they warned, could undermine the rule of law.
“If the appointment of the PP is placed beyond both parliamentary and judicial scrutiny, it risks weakening the Constitution’s basic structure,” they said.
The group added that while the Bill reduces prime ministerial influence, executive involvement remains since the process still lies within the broader executive framework.
“This is precisely why parliamentary oversight is necessary. It ensures that no single institution exercises such significant power without accountability,” they said.
Calling the reform a “historic constitutional moment”, the signatories urged MPs across party lines to amend the Bill to include parliamentary review.
“A transparent, multi-layered appointment process with parliamentary scrutiny is not a threat. It is an essential step towards restoring public trust and safeguarding the integrity of our justice system,” they added.
