KUALA LUMPUR: Rosmah Mansor, the wife of former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak, was acquitted last week of 17 charges relating to money laundering and tax evasion.
As soon as news of her acquittal broke, speculation began that current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had something to do with it. Anwar has dismissed the claims as unfounded, saying on Saturday (Dec 21) that he did not interfere in Rosmah’s case.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an early release for Najib – whose sentence for corruption and abuse of power was halved from 12 years to six years earlier this year – is taking roots as UMNO is an essential pillar of Anwar’s government, and Najib’s popularity among party supporters have not faded.
In Malaysia, legal decisions involving prominent figures are often viewed through a political lens. The country has experienced much political instability in recent years, with five different prime ministers in the last six years. As such, any trial involving a senior or prominent figure can be seen to be as much about power as it is justice.
These cases also reflect a wider global trend, where legal systems are sometimes used as tools in political battles, raising concerns about the fairness of justice.
POLITICAL VENGEANCE OR JUSTICE
Anwar said as much over the weekend, stating that the prosecutions of several cases following the 2018 election were carried out “with such venom and enmity … and political vengeance by those in power at the time”.
Anwar himself has been jailed twice on corruption and sexual charges he has long decried were politically motivated. His supporters have consistently argued that his trials were mere tools wielded by political adversaries seeking to marginalise dissent. Anwar’s narrative of victimisation resonates within a society still grappling with the legacies of authoritarian rule.
However, since he took power in 2022, the recurrence of accusations against Anwar’s political enemies and the judiciary decisions in the controversial cases involving his new allies have raised questions about the integrity of his struggle, and the veracity of his own narrative.
Several high-profile personalities including Syed Saddiq, Mahathir Mohamad and the late Daim Zainuddin have been involved in legal proceedings that some view as being influenced by political dynamics.
Syed Saddiq, the former poster boy of youth party MUDA and Minister of Youth and Sports under Mahathir’s government (2018-2020), was sentenced in November 2023 to seven years’ jail, a fine of RM10 million (US$2.2 million) and two strokes of the cane for criminal breach of trust and money laundering offences.
He has lodged an appeal against the conviction and sentence, which is scheduled for hearing on Mar 19 and 20, 2025.
Syed has said that his prosecution was politically motivated and part of the ruling party’s efforts to quell opposition. Observers have argued that his sentence is excessively harsh, compared with other corruption cases. Justice Azhar Abdul Hamid justified it by explaining that the court took into account his status as a public figure and a role model for young people.
Syed’s case has highlighted a generational divide in Malaysian politics, where youthful fervour clashes with the entrenched interests of older political elites. Some worry his conviction could deter young people from entering politics, for fear of being caught up in the intricacies of political justice.
Mahathir and his finance minister Daim (who died last month), both once regarded as titans in Malaysian politics, have also been embroiled in allegations of corruption and abuse of power, illustrating the shifting alliances and retaliatory nature of contemporary Malaysian politics.
POLITICAL THEATRE
These dynamics are not unique to Malaysia. They echo global patterns where judicial systems are increasingly weaponised for political ends. From the trial of Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to the legal battles faced by former US president Donald Trump, the notion of political vendetta rears its head repeatedly. Courts have become stages for political theatre, where the rules of engagement often favour the powerful and those willing to enlist the machinery of justice for their purposes.
Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and TikTok provide another stage for both supporters and detractors to shape public perception. In a world where information travels at lightning speed, the potential for opinion manipulation grows ever more pronounced.
The virality of certain narratives can overshadow facts, creating an alternative truth that is palatable to a significant portion of the populace. Such scenarios complicate the public’s understanding of legal matters, particularly when cases are shrouded in political context.
In Malaysia, as elsewhere, social media has amplified claims of political victimisation, oftentimes presenting a skewed version of reality. Supporters rally behind their leaders, painting them as martyrs of a corrupt system, while opponents use the same platforms to reinforce their narratives of guilt and culpability. This polarisation serves to entrench divisions within society, suggesting that justice is less about the pursuit of truth and more about scoring points in a broader political game.
What becomes apparent is that justice can sometimes be conducted by proxy. Political actors utilise the legal system not just to penalise opponents but to distract from their own failures. By focusing on high-profile trials and allegations, they can shift public focus from pressing issues like economic stagnation or social inequality. This tactic can create a narrative that serves the political agenda of those in power.
Malaysia, like many countries, faces the reality that these trials can have a lasting impact on the country’s history and political future. The challenge lies in discerning fact from fiction, truth from alternative narratives, and recognising the profound impact these stories have on society and its trajectory.
Dr Sophie Lemiere is a political anthropologist who specialises in Malaysian politics, and has held research and teaching positions in major universities across Europe, the United States and Southeast Asia. She is currently Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, as well as Research Fellow at College de France in Paris.