Malaysia may have abolished its jury system, but the country’s top prosecutor Mohamed Apandi Ali is of the opinion that the sub judice rule must continue to be maintained.

“We can’t take for granted that judges can’t be influenced, there have been instances (where) judges have been influenced.

“Not only by writing, even the mere presence of people in a courtroom can instill fear in a judge,” he said.

Stressing how judges are only human, although they are expected to give decisions without fear or favour, many, sometimes are confronted with the supporters of the accused of a particular case.

“Some judges have told me, they feel the fear. The element of fear is there, judges are also human.

“To avoid that is better, to still maintain this sub judice (rule),” he said.

Apandi was responding to a question by The Sun Daily ’s investigative journalist R Nadeswaran who asked him why the sub-judice rule is still maintained. The attorney-general had earlier given a talk to media practitioners and academicians in Kuala Lumpur today.

Sub judice is a Latin term meaning "under judgment", which means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

The term was recently used by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said who had refused to respond to a lawmaker’s question on the RM2.6 billion scandal by insisting it would be sub judice to do so.

Last year, Azalina also said that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was advised by Apandi from going to Parliament to answer on the matter as it would be sub judice to do so.

Two former Court of Appeal judges, however, disagreed with the argument, with one former judge stating that the matter of sub judice did not arise at all as the issue was not before any court proceeding.