JAC Act not binding in judge appointments, says Azalina
She explained that the Act primarily serves to screen, evaluate, and recommend candidates to the Prime Minister, while final appointments must comply with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
'The JAC Act is not a final step in the appointment process. It only recommends names, and these recommendations are not binding. For JAC's role to be legally binding, the Constitution would need to be amended,' Azalina told reporters after officiating the 22nd Pengerang UMNO Division Delegates Meeting.
She referenced a previous clarification by former Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who stated in Parliament that the JAC Act functions as an administrative provision without binding legal effect.
Regarding the Malaysian Bar's planned march, Azalina acknowledged their democratic right to protest, provided it remains professional and lawful.
'If they want to march, that is their right. As lawyers, I believe most of them are professionals who understand Article 122B and the JAC Act 2009,' she said.
Additionally, Azalina confirmed that the appointment of a new Chief Justice will be finalised after the 269th Conference of Rulers, scheduled from July 15 to 17.
This follows concerns raised by PEMBELA chairman Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar over delays due to recent judicial retirements. – Bernama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Focus Malaysia
an hour ago
- Focus Malaysia
Open letter to Agong: Upholding the integrity of the judiciary in the appointment of top judges
Letter to editor WITH the utmost respect and loyalty, I write to Your Majesty as a concerned citizen deeply invested in the preservation of justice, rule of law and institutional integrity within our beloved Malaysia. The Judiciary stands as the final bastion of hope for justice, equity, and constitutional governance. However, recent developments have cast a troubling shadow over public confidence in this vital institution. Allegations of judicial misconduct, procedural irregularities and claims of external interference – whether substantiated or under investigation – have raised legitimate concerns about the health of our judicial system. In such a climate, the process of appointing top judges assumes even greater importance. The weight of this responsibility lies not only with those who nominate but ultimately with Your Majesty whose constitutional discretion serves as a safeguard against the erosion of judicial independence. Editor's Note: The Conference of Rulers is expected to decide and announce the appointment of the new Chief Justice today (July 16), according to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. It is respectfully urged that, in considering appointments to the highest offices of the judiciary, Your Majesty: Insist on transparent and meritorious selection: Candidates must be evaluated based on integrity, independence and a demonstrated commitment to constitutional values, free from political or external influence. Candidates must be evaluated based on integrity, independence and a demonstrated commitment to constitutional values, free from political or external influence. Encourage full disclosure: In light of recent allegations, it is vital that any concerns surrounding nominees be publicly addressed and cleared through transparent mechanisms before confirmation. In light of recent allegations, it is vital that any concerns surrounding nominees be publicly addressed and cleared through transparent mechanisms before confirmation. Uphold the constitutional spirit: The Judiciary must not only be impartial but be seen to be so. Confidence in judicial impartiality is crucial to national stability, investor confidence and the moral fabric of our society. Your Majesty's unique role as the protector of the Federal Constitution and symbol of national unity is especially vital in times of uncertainty. Malaysians look to the Throne not only for guidance but for assurance that justice shall never be compromised by expediency or hidden interests. May Allah continue to grant Your Majesty wisdom, strength and compassion in the service of the nation. Daulat Tuanku. Member of Public@CITIZEN Kuala Lumpur The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Images credit: Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar/Facebook
Focus Malaysia
2 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
So is Terrirudin a Chief Justice candidate or his name never made it into the list at all?
AS law-conscious Malaysians turn to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to uphold judiciary integrity in the appointment of top judges, a constitutions lawyer has offered the media his services free-of-charge amid the classification of the leaked Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972. New Sin Yew who is also a human rights champion made the offer as he took a jibe at Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil over the weakened (July 13) for tending to prioritise arresting the source of the leak instead of addressing the content of the30-page JAC minutes which – if true – shows interference with the judiciary, 'To all media friends, I will act for you pro bono if you are investigated,' the senior advocate at AmerBON penned on X in reaction to Fahmi cautioning the media against disseminating the leak documents given the OSA applies if they are found to be authentic and classified as government secret. For context, prior to Fahmi's statement, former Barisan Nasional (BN) strategic communication deputy director Datuk Eric See-To had made a damning claim that 'the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) had plans to make Terri (Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh) Chief Judge of Malaya since last year'. 'After the post became vacant in February 2024, JAC (had) proposed candidates but PMO rejected all and pushed Terri's name by July (2024) despite him being AG (Attorney-General) for only nine months then and facing heavy protests from the Bar Council and Ramkarpal Singh (DAP Bukit Gelugor MP). Turns out, PMO had plans to make Terri Chief Judge of Malaya since last year. After the post became vacant in Feb 2024, JAC proposed candidates, but PMO rejected all and pushed Terri's name by July -despite him being AG for only 9 months then and facing heavy protests from the… — Eric SeeTo Lim Sian See (@LimSianSeeEric) July 12, 2025 'By November 2024, Terri was appointed Federal Court Judge, just a year after becoming AG. The leaked JAC minutes now show Terri was nominated for Chief Judge in May 2025 against the Chief Justice's advice, citing integrity issues.' Police probe lends legitimacy True enough, just hours later on the same day (July 13), the police launched a probe under the OSA into the purported leak of the JAC meeting minutes. According to Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Ismail, the investigation will focus on how the internal information could have been exposed and revealed on social media. The case is being probed under Section 8 of the OSA which stipulates offences regarding wrongful communication of official secrets. On top of this, the police are also looking into the case under Section 203A of the Penal Code (disclosures of information obtained during performance of one's duties) and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (improper use of network facilities). This itself sparked a social media frenzy with Cilisos Media editor-in-chief Iqbal Fatkhi wondering if the action of the authorities – by subjecting the JAC minutes under OSA scrutiny – would only lend further credence and legitimacy to the documents' authenticity. Are they so dumb they don't realize by doing this, they've confirmed its authenticity? — Iqbal (@Iqtodabal) July 14, 2025 'Are they so dumb (till) they don't realise by doing this, they've confirmed its authenticity?' asked Iqbal on X. This was when a witty commenter took the middle path by defending the police for having no choice but to pursue an investigation since a report has been lodged except that 'in this case, ironically, the horse has bolted the barn, hence shutting the barn door now ain't gonna help much'. Fast forward 48 hours later to yesterday (July 15), an anonymous MP who attended Monday's (July 14) closed door meeting between Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Harapan (PH) MPs had reportedly told the New Straits Times that Terrirudin had never been a candidate for the vacant Chief Justice role nor his name is on the list for the Court of Appeal President or Chief Judge of Malaya posts. If this is indeed true and not a cover-up, does this mean that the leaked 30-page May 2025 JAC minutes is merely a fake document? If such is the case, then why classify the case under OSA in the first place? Well, it seems that there is no ending except controversies of sorts standing (and still brewing) in the way of appointing a new Chief Justice which should by right be a walk in the park if all procedures and protocols are strictly adhered to. – July 16, 2025 Main image credit: Daily Express
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Judicial picks expected today
PUTRAJAYA: An announcement regarding judicial appointments is expected today, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said. He acknowledged delays and public unease over certain appointments but assured them all processes have been carried out fairly and transparently. Anwar said he had a lengthy discussion with the Conference of Rulers yesterday morning. 'I think let them decide and tomorrow (today), hopefully, there will be an announcement that will clearly dispel the so-called negative perceptions,' he said in his speech at Malaysia's International Conference on Integrity and Governance here yesterday. Anwar, who is also Finance Minister, stressed that the government fully upholds judicial independence and has not interfered in any court proceedings or decisions during his tenure. 'I rest my case, and I hope when the announcement is made, it will prove this government is committed to reform, including the principle of judicial independence,' he said, as reported by Bernama. Meanwhile, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said noted that the government will review the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 amid public confusion over the recent Chief Justice appointment process. She said a special committee will be set up, comprising members of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, as well as constitutional experts, legal practitioners and academics. 'We have to improve because what is happening now is that there is a lot of confusion. (There's) no clarity from the public perspective. But then this particular JAC, which was passed and established in 2009, is responsible for the appointment of five Chief Justices. It has never been an issue. 'Sadly, now there is an issue, so we have to study it. Where did the non-clarity or confusion come in? Is it the processes, or is it the wording of the Act?' she said to reporters after attending the International Conference on Integrity and Governance here yesterday. She said the government had announced the implementation of a Comparative Study of the Judicial Appointment System by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department last week, as part of efforts to enhance transparency in the appointment procedure of superior court judges She said the study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the JAC's role and to also address issues raised by the Malaysian Bar. 'The government is always open to the views of all parties, including the Malaysian Bar, who will also be invited to join in this study, to ensure a more transparent, integrity-based and trusted judicial appointment system for the people. 'In addition, issues raised by the Malaysian Bar should be considered within the framework of the Federal Constitution, the Judicial Appointments Commission Act and other laws in force,' she said in a statement. On Monday, Azalina clarified that the JAC does not have binding authority in judicial appointments. She explained the JAC's primary role is to screen, assess and recommend candidates to the Prime Minister, while appointments to the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court must ultimately comply with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
