PETALING JAYA – A new report by the Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) has exposed serious weaknesses in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) oversight system, warning that the agency operates with little meaningful accountability despite the presence of multiple advisory bodies.
The study found that all five institutions commonly cited as checks on the MACC — the Anti-Corruption Advisory Body (ACAB), Special Committee on Corruption (SCC), Complaints Committee (CC), Operations Review Panel (ORP) and Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel (CCPP) — lack the authority to investigate misconduct, compel evidence or impose sanctions.
As a result, the MACC is effectively left to police itself.
“This institutional design creates a conflict of interest when investigations involve the Prime Minister or close political allies,” the report said.
It also claimed that the MACC Chief Commissioner is appointed through the Prime Minister’s binding advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
According to C4, the agency’s oversight arrangements are fragmented, opaque and largely symbolic, with the implementation of advisory recommendations left entirely to the MACC’s discretion.
Public confidence, the report said, has eroded amid allegations of selective prosecution and political interference.
The report highlighted several high-profile cases to illustrate these shortcomings, including the 2009 death of Teoh Beng Hock while in MACC custody, the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal and the 2021 shareholding controversy involving MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, whose term was renewed three times despite allegations of regulatory breaches.
Other examples cited include the failure to table the Special Committee on Corruption’s 2020 report in Parliament and instances of witness intimidation noted by the Court of Appeal in the 2025 corruption case involving Muar Member of Parliament Syed Saddiq.
The report added that the recent Sabah corruption scandal and the MACC’s treatment of whistleblower Albert Tei have further exposed deep-rooted accountability issues.
“It is apparent that, other than instituting a lawsuit against the MACC, Tei would have no avenue for recourse, even if the commission had been proven to have mistreated him.
“The exercise of the MACC’s powers must be accountable to an independent body, and any complaints mechanism against the commission must be made publicly available,” C4 stressed.
To address these gaps, C4 recommended expanding Ombudsman Malaysia’s jurisdiction to include oversight of the MACC, establishing a Parliamentary Special Select Committee with powers to summon witnesses and request documents and separating the offices of the Attorney General and Public Prosecutor through an independent appointment process.
“We urge the establishment of a Parliamentary Special Select Committee dedicated to overseeing the MACC, with powers to summon witnesses, request documents and oversee the appointment and removal of the Chief Commissioner.
“ACAB, ORP and CCPP should be reframed as advisory or support bodies with strengthened transparency obligations, while genuine oversight functions are relocated to Parliament and the Ombudsman,” the group said.
It also called for the separation of the roles of Attorney General and Public Prosecutor, with an independent Public Prosecutor appointed through a non-executive-dominated process and governed by clear prosecutorial guidelines.
The report stressed that while current advisory panels should remain in place, their focus should be on transparency, with real oversight powers transferred to independent and parliamentary bodies.
Without such reforms, C4 warned, the MACC’s public credibility will continue to decline.