Legal milestone: New appointments sees women in top roles in judiciary
For the second time in our nation's history, women now lead the top two positions in the judiciary.
Billed as RM9.73 for the 1st month then RM13.90 thereafters.
RM12.33/month
RM8.63/month
Billed as RM103.60 for the 1st year then RM148 thereafters.
Free Trial
For new subscribers only
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysian Reserve
2 hours ago
- Malaysian Reserve
High Court orders TikTok account holder pay RM100,000 to Rosmah for defamation
KUALA LUMPUR — The High Court today ordered a TikTok account holder to pay damages of RM100,000 to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor (picture) in a defamation suit filed by the wife of former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Judge Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh ordered Ku Muhammad Hilmie Ku Din, 35, to pay the amount to Rosmah, after finding that the plaintiff had successfully established her entitlement to damages for defamation. 'This court finds a global award in the sum of RM100,000 for general and aggravated damages. This court has decided not to award exemplary damages. 'The claim for exemplary damages is not allowed as there is no cogent evidence before this court to support such an award,' he said during the decision for the assessment of damages today. The proceeding was held online. The court ordered interest of five per cent per annum on the judgment sum to be imposed from the date of judgment until full satisfaction of the award. Ku Muhammad Hilmie Ku Din, 35, was also ordered to pay costs of RM20,000. In his judgment, Ahmad Shahrir said the court found that the defamatory allegations levelled against Rosmah impute her involvement in supernatural practices and associate her with spiritual entities. 'These imputations constitute an attack on her character in the domains of religious integrity and moral standing. 'In a societal context where religious values and moral propriety carry significant weight, such allegations assume a particular seriousness and have the potential to cause distinct reputational harm,' he said. Ahmad Shahrir said he had considered the judicial trend towards moderation in damages, describing it as compensatory in nature and not intended to be punitive. The judge said that although Rosmah had been convicted by the High Court over the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid project in Sarawak, and she is currently appealing at the Court of Appeal, damages in a defamation claim must be assessed without reference to that conviction. Ahmad Shahrir said her conviction cannot be relied upon as evidence of bad character for the purpose of reducing the quantum of damages. During the proceedings today, counsel Datuk Abu Bakar Isa Ramat and Mohamed Baharuden Mohamed Ariff appeared for Rosmah. On May 28 last year, Rosmah, 73, obtained a judgment in default from the High Court against Ku Muhammad Hilmie after he failed to respond to the suit within the stipulated timeframe. Rosmah, who filed the suit on Sept 19, 2023, alleged that Ku Muhammad Hilmie uploaded a video on his TikTok account containing defamatory and false statements against her on March 22, 2023. She claimed that the defamatory statement, among others, implied that she had committed sinful acts, was associated with activities involving the devil, bomoh (shaman) and an evil individual who engages in syirik (idolatrous) practices. Rosmah contended that the publication of the statements seriously damaged her reputation as the wife of Malaysia's sixth prime minister and as a patron of various charitable organisations. — BERNAMA
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
AGC explains judicial appointment process under Federal Constitution
KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has reaffirmed that the appointment process for judges, including key positions such as the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal, follows strict constitutional procedures. The clarification comes in response to recent calls for an inquiry into judicial appointments. The AGC stated that the Prime Minister holds a constitutional duty to advise the King on judicial appointments, ensuring the judiciary's independence and integrity. 'The Prime Minister cannot be regarded merely as a conduit for recommendations from any party,' the AGC said. Recent appointments to the High Court and Court of Appeal were confirmed last month, pending final formalities. The AGC stressed that delays in processing nominations must be viewed within the framework of the Federal Constitution. The statement addressed concerns raised by Pandan MP Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli and others, who had urged for a Commission of Inquiry and Parliamentary Select Committee to review judicial appointments. The AGC acknowledged public interest in maintaining confidence in the judiciary but reiterated that constitutional processes must be respected. Under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, judges are appointed by the King upon the Prime Minister's advice, following consultation with the Conference of Rulers. The Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 governs candidate recommendations, though final authority remains with the Prime Minister. Regarding claims that a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting was convened without proper notice, the AGC clarified that the JAC may proceed in urgent cases with unanimous member agreement. 'Procedural matters do not invalidate JAC deliberations unless mala fide or prejudice is proven,' the statement read. Allegations of judicial interference were described as premature and speculative. The AGC dismissed comparisons to the 2007 VK Lingam case, noting that current claims lack credible evidence of misconduct. While parliamentary committees may examine governance issues, the AGC cautioned against politicising constitutional appointments. 'Both the King and Prime Minister must exercise their powers independently,' the statement emphasised. The AGC urged restraint, stating that procedural discrepancies do not equate to a constitutional crisis. Strengthening institutional maturity, rather than speculation, was highlighted as key to upholding the rule of law. - Bernama
Borneo Post
3 hours ago
- Borneo Post
AGC clarifies judicial appointment process is constitutionally prescribed
AGC emphasiseS that the process must take into account all relevant considerations, including the need for consultation and the exercise of discretionary powers within the constitutional framework. KUALA LUMPUR (July 8): The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) today clarified that the timeline and process for finalising judicial appointments, particularly for key positions such as the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, are governed by procedures set out in the Federal Constitution. In a statement, the AGC emphasised that the process must take into account all relevant considerations, including the need for consultation and the exercise of discretionary powers within the constitutional framework. The AGC further stated that it had been informed that the King had consented to the appointment of several judges to the High Court and Court of Appeal last month. These appointments, however, remain subject to the completion of certain formalities. 'Such appointments must be carried out in a proper and orderly manner. Allegations of delay or inaction in responding to earlier nominations must be viewed in the context of the provisions of the Federal Constitution. 'The Prime Minister cannot be regarded merely as a conduit for recommendations from any party. Rather, he bears a constitutional duty to advise the King in a manner that upholds the independence, credibility and integrity of the judiciary,' the AGC said. MORE TO COME
