KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 26): The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) has called for oversight of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to be shifted to Parliament and the Ombudsman citing extensive weaknesses in its current mechanism.
The recommendation is one of multiple put forward by the policy advocacy centre after it looked into the oversight mechanism of the anti-graft body in a newly released report entitled “Who holds the MACC accountable?”, according to a statement on Monday.
C4 Center noted that the various MACC bodies — the Special Committee on Corruption (SCC), the Anti-Corruption Advisory Body (ACAB), the Complaints Committee, the Operations Review Panel (ORP) and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel (CCPP) — underlined by defenders of the commission’s independence and check-and-balance mechanisms do not equate to meaningful accountability.
It found that MACC oversight is largely opaque and conducted behind closed doors, with limited accountability. The agency is not required to respond to oversight findings, and none of the five oversight bodies have the power to investigate misconduct, compel evidence, or enforce consequences.
C4 said the prime minister has ‘decisive control’ over appointments to the MACC, its oversight bodies, and the Attorney General’s Office. Appointment criteria are vague, giving room for discretion, and oversight is fragmented across weak bodies, leading to accountability gaps.
“Describing these five organisations as ‘oversight bodies’ is misleading; each body only holds advisory functions, with the implementation of this advice being at the sole discretion of the MACC,” it said.
The C4 Center recommends giving real oversight of the MACC to Parliament and the Ombudsman.
It said Ombudsman Malaysia should handle complaints with independent investigatory powers while a Parliamentary Special Select Committee should oversee the MACC, with powers to summon witnesses, request documents, and manage the chief commissioner’s appointment or removal.
Bodies like the ACAB, ORP, and CCPP should serve only as advisory/support bodies with stronger transparency, the MACC said.
An ombudsman is typically an independent official or panel appointed to investigate complaints from members of the public. Previously, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the Ombudsman Malaysia Bill is targeted to be tabled in early 2026.
C4 Centre highlighted the following as key cases showing MACC oversight weaknesses:
- Teoh Beng Hock (2009): Despite separate findings by the Human Rights Commission, a Royal Commission of Inquiry and a Court of Appeal judgement highlighting numerous instances of misconduct and even abuse perpetrated by MACC officers, not a single individual has been successfully charged for their role in his death;
- The 1MDB scandal (2015): Less than a year after the alleged misappropriation of RM2.6 billion by former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was exposed, then-attorney general Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali cleared him of all wrongdoing. Shortly after, the MACC would refer this case to the ORP. Apandi would respond by saying that, “any bodies formed to question any decision of the AG would be against Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution”;
- Tan Sri Azam Baki shareholding ownership (2021): Alleged violation of public service rules; yet his term as the MACC chief commissioner was renewed three times.
- Ignoring the SCC’s annual report 2020 (2022): Despite, obligations under Section 14 of the MACC Act 2009 requiring the prime minister to present the SCC’s report to Parliament, the 2020 version — which was only published in 2022 — along with its numerous recommendations have not been laid before Parliament;
- Syed Saddiq's corruption trial (2025): The Court of Appeal acquitted Muar Member of Parliament Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman and highlighted three cases of witness abuse by MACC officers.