In my view, both as a practitioner and from the vantage point of the bench, Malaysia can lay claim to having some of the best-trained and most skilled prosecutors.
As a lawyer and judge, more specifically a whistleblower judge, who has exposed judicial misconduct on an affidavit, I can lay claim to having seen both the ethical and unethical conduct of prosecutors, including those who hold the high position of senior federal counsel. In a jury trial, selective prosecution may not lead to conviction at all. A jury trial was a 1215 Magna Carta guarantee given by the King of England to ensure that theis not vested in the judiciary. Judges are only entrusted with law. To this very day, even the English do not trust their judges to be both triers of facts and law as regards serious offences.
I am of the opinion that the Rulers, as per their oath of office to sustain rule of law, have the constitutional power to correct such kinds of misconduct by constitutional functionaries or its agencies. These matters can also be raised in a petition for pardon. Here I must point out that ethical conduct and compliance of law for a prosecutor and of a defence counsel is not one and the same.
A judge only sits in the position of a referee under the laws of the land to decide whether the prosecutor has satisfied the requirement to convict the person charged. The judge has no inquisitorial role to find out the truth.