Event Summary
On 23 February 2026, the government tabled the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2026 on role separation between the Attorney-General (AG) and the Public Prosecutor (PP) for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat, with intentions of rushing to pass the Bill by 3 March 2026. While the Executive frames this as a progressive fulfilment of reform pledges, political actors across the divide and civil society have raised alarms over issues of separation of powers and institutional accountability.
Key concerns:
- PP appointment and removal: The King has discretion in appointing the PP on the Judicial and Legal Service Commission’s (SPKP) recommendation and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. Contrary to Executive claims of removing political interference, critics argue the structure retains executive influence, as the SPKP chair remains appointed on the Prime Minister’s advice. Unfettered discretion, even by the King, risks bypassing institutional oversight, creating systemic conflicts of interest since any individual—including royalty—could potentially be subject to criminal proceedings. Without legislative oversight in appointment and removal, the PP remains insulated from accountability, potentially retaining office despite performance failures or public rejection.
- Prosecutorial powers: Characterised as a copy-paste of the existing Article 145(3), the Bill transfers absolute discretion from the AG to the PP without requiring judicial review or reasoned justifications for discontinuing proceedings. CSOs also warn of ‘forum shopping’ risks through new trial venue powers and institutional deadlocks in cases requiring dual AG-PP consent. without clear coordinating guidelines.
- Institutional Conflicts: The PP and AG’s membership in the SPKP creates a conflict of interest that compromises separation of powers, as SPKP manages both prosecutorial and judicial appointments. Additionally, replacing the AG with the PP on the Pardons Board creates an inherent conflict between the duty to prosecute and the clemency process.
- Tenure: Concerns of coalescence of power were raised regarding the PP’s seven-year term with potential extensions upon review. CSOs advocate for a single, non-renewable term and a mandatory retirement age. Government backbenchers propose reducing the term to four years.
The aforementioned diverse stakeholders urgently called for referral of the Bill to the Parliamentary Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Elections and Institutional Reform for a formal inquiry and comprehensive review.