Controversy brewing over Malaysia's top judge appointments
As the calendar inches toward June 30, the date marking the retirement of Malaysia's Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the nation is gripped by an intensifying judicial drama. Instead of a seamless transition, the top echelon of Malaysia's judiciary is overshadowed by uncertainty and deepening controversy.
Under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, a federal court judge may serve until the age of 66, with the possibility of a six-month extension granted by the king. This extension, a routine administrative procedure in previous transitions, has yet to materialize for Tengku Maimun. The silence has been deafening—and perplexing.
Even more curious is the fact that her presumed successor, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, also faces mandatory retirement on July 2. Yet he, too, has not received any confirmation of extension. The next most senior judge, Federal Court Justice Nallini Pathmanathan, due to retire in August, is likewise in limbo.
At present, only Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, has received a service extension, allowing her to remain in position until November. This leaves Malaysia, for the first time in its legal history, staring down the prospect of simultaneous vacancies in its top two judicial posts without any formal indication of succession.
This vacuum has sparked feverish speculation. The name Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh—former Attorney General and recently appointed Federal Court judge—has surfaced as a likely candidate. His ascent has raised eyebrows, not least because his judicial appointment was made on the advice of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and also due to his relatively junior status.
The proximity of Terrirudin's elevation to the expiration of terms for senior judges has fueled certain speculation that his appointment may be a political maneuver. The process, which constitutionally involves the prime minister advising the king, has drawn sharp criticism due to Anwar's unresolved legal entanglements.
Indeed, Anwar stands as the only sitting prime minister in Malaysia's history with an active personal lawsuit—filed by Yusoff Rawther, alleging sexual misconduct. The unresolved nature of this civil case creates what many legal minds argue is an unavoidable conflict of interest in any executive role he plays in judicial appointments.
This concern is not hypothetical. Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has publicly cautioned against straying from established seniority traditions, warning that bypassing more experienced judges may erode the judiciary's institutional stability and morale while straining the doctrine of separation of powers.
The controversy has deepened with revelations of internal discord within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
Tensions reportedly escalated in a recent JAC meeting following the questioning of a senior judge—later revealed to be Ahmad Terrirudin—over allegations of interference in judicial appointments. The situation reached a crescendo when a police report was lodged against a journalist probing these leaks, further fueling concerns over press freedom and transparency.
These events catalyzed the formation of a cross-partisan body, the Secretariat to Defend the Judiciary, spearheaded by former minister and Hindraf leader Waytha Moorthy, alongside Rawther's lawyer, Rafique Rashid.
The roundtable they convened on June 23 brought together an improbable coalition of political veterans—Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Muhyiddin Yassin, Rais Yatim, Zaid Ibrahim, Takiyuddin Hassan, and Dr P Ramasamy—who set aside past rivalries in defense of judicial independence.
Their joint declaration outlined six demands, notably the urgent need for judicial appointments to be based strictly on merit, integrity and seniority, and for the prime minister to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Most strikingly, they called for Anwar to take a leave of absence until his court case is resolved.
This extraordinary convergence of former adversaries underlines the gravity of the moment. Malaysia stands at a constitutional crossroads. The stakes are high—not merely in terms of who will occupy the judiciary's top posts, but whether the nation can preserve its legal integrity amid executive encroachment.
Observers have also drawn comparisons with Prime Minister Anwar's recent controversial decision to appoint Thailand's former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—himself facing unresolved legal proceedings in his home country—as his personal adviser in ASEAN affairs. That appointment raised international eyebrows and domestic criticism, casting doubt over Anwar's commitment to principles of transparency and accountability.
More recently, Anwar's image has been further dented when he became the first sitting prime minister in Malaysian history to seek legal immunity from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Yusoff Rawther. Although the court has dismissed the immunity request, Anwar's legal team is reportedly planning to appeal the decision.
This move has fueled additional scrutiny over the prime minister's respect for due legal process and intensified public debate over his impartiality in overseeing judicial matters.
So, why the delay in naming Tengku Maimun's successor? Why elevate Ahmad Terrirudin despite his controversial standing? And crucially, is this a calculated consolidation of power by a prime minister still fighting personal legal battles?
What happens in the coming days will set a precedent not just for Malaysia's judiciary but for the state of the nation's democracy. The judiciary, long regarded as the last line of defense in upholding the rule of law, now finds itself under unprecedented scrutiny.
Will institutional integrity hold firm, or will political expediency prevail? The answers, or lack thereof, may chart the course of Malaysian democracy for years to come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
2 days ago
- AllAfrica
Controversy brewing over Malaysia's top judge appointments
As the calendar inches toward June 30, the date marking the retirement of Malaysia's Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the nation is gripped by an intensifying judicial drama. Instead of a seamless transition, the top echelon of Malaysia's judiciary is overshadowed by uncertainty and deepening controversy. Under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, a federal court judge may serve until the age of 66, with the possibility of a six-month extension granted by the king. This extension, a routine administrative procedure in previous transitions, has yet to materialize for Tengku Maimun. The silence has been deafening—and perplexing. Even more curious is the fact that her presumed successor, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, also faces mandatory retirement on July 2. Yet he, too, has not received any confirmation of extension. The next most senior judge, Federal Court Justice Nallini Pathmanathan, due to retire in August, is likewise in limbo. At present, only Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, has received a service extension, allowing her to remain in position until November. This leaves Malaysia, for the first time in its legal history, staring down the prospect of simultaneous vacancies in its top two judicial posts without any formal indication of succession. This vacuum has sparked feverish speculation. The name Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh—former Attorney General and recently appointed Federal Court judge—has surfaced as a likely candidate. His ascent has raised eyebrows, not least because his judicial appointment was made on the advice of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and also due to his relatively junior status. The proximity of Terrirudin's elevation to the expiration of terms for senior judges has fueled certain speculation that his appointment may be a political maneuver. The process, which constitutionally involves the prime minister advising the king, has drawn sharp criticism due to Anwar's unresolved legal entanglements. Indeed, Anwar stands as the only sitting prime minister in Malaysia's history with an active personal lawsuit—filed by Yusoff Rawther, alleging sexual misconduct. The unresolved nature of this civil case creates what many legal minds argue is an unavoidable conflict of interest in any executive role he plays in judicial appointments. This concern is not hypothetical. Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has publicly cautioned against straying from established seniority traditions, warning that bypassing more experienced judges may erode the judiciary's institutional stability and morale while straining the doctrine of separation of powers. The controversy has deepened with revelations of internal discord within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Tensions reportedly escalated in a recent JAC meeting following the questioning of a senior judge—later revealed to be Ahmad Terrirudin—over allegations of interference in judicial appointments. The situation reached a crescendo when a police report was lodged against a journalist probing these leaks, further fueling concerns over press freedom and transparency. These events catalyzed the formation of a cross-partisan body, the Secretariat to Defend the Judiciary, spearheaded by former minister and Hindraf leader Waytha Moorthy, alongside Rawther's lawyer, Rafique Rashid. The roundtable they convened on June 23 brought together an improbable coalition of political veterans—Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Muhyiddin Yassin, Rais Yatim, Zaid Ibrahim, Takiyuddin Hassan, and Dr P Ramasamy—who set aside past rivalries in defense of judicial independence. Their joint declaration outlined six demands, notably the urgent need for judicial appointments to be based strictly on merit, integrity and seniority, and for the prime minister to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Most strikingly, they called for Anwar to take a leave of absence until his court case is resolved. This extraordinary convergence of former adversaries underlines the gravity of the moment. Malaysia stands at a constitutional crossroads. The stakes are high—not merely in terms of who will occupy the judiciary's top posts, but whether the nation can preserve its legal integrity amid executive encroachment. Observers have also drawn comparisons with Prime Minister Anwar's recent controversial decision to appoint Thailand's former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—himself facing unresolved legal proceedings in his home country—as his personal adviser in ASEAN affairs. That appointment raised international eyebrows and domestic criticism, casting doubt over Anwar's commitment to principles of transparency and accountability. More recently, Anwar's image has been further dented when he became the first sitting prime minister in Malaysian history to seek legal immunity from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Yusoff Rawther. Although the court has dismissed the immunity request, Anwar's legal team is reportedly planning to appeal the decision. This move has fueled additional scrutiny over the prime minister's respect for due legal process and intensified public debate over his impartiality in overseeing judicial matters. So, why the delay in naming Tengku Maimun's successor? Why elevate Ahmad Terrirudin despite his controversial standing? And crucially, is this a calculated consolidation of power by a prime minister still fighting personal legal battles? What happens in the coming days will set a precedent not just for Malaysia's judiciary but for the state of the nation's democracy. The judiciary, long regarded as the last line of defense in upholding the rule of law, now finds itself under unprecedented scrutiny. Will institutional integrity hold firm, or will political expediency prevail? The answers, or lack thereof, may chart the course of Malaysian democracy for years to come.
HKFP
3 days ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong court jails 5 for rioting in 2019 protests following gov't appeal against acquittal
A Hong Kong court has jailed five people for rioting during the 2019 pro-democracy protests and unrest after the government successfully challenged their acquittal. Deputy District Judge David Ko on Wednesday sent Lam Hin-shing, 21; Angie Lee, 23; So Nga-yin, 26; Henry Tse, 28; and Chan Lok-sun, 31, to prison following their rioting convictions. Lam was jailed for two-and-a-half years, Lee and So for two years and two weeks, Tse for two years and two months, and Chan for three years and two weeks. The three men and two women had previously been acquitted of rioting in December 2021, but the government successfully appealed against the ruling in May 2024. Last year, the Court of Appeal quashed Ko's acquittal verdict for the five and ordered him to preside over the case again. The five stood accused of rioting on October 6, 2019, in Wan Chai. Following the government's appeal, Lee, So, and Tse pleaded guilty in March, while Lam and Chan were found guilty after trial earlier this month. During mitigation on Wednesday, defence lawyers told the court that years of court proceedings following the government's appeal had exerted psychological pressure on the five and affected their lives. 'They were forced to accept, forced to wait, and forced to be patient,' barrister Keith Fung, representing Lee and Chan, said in Cantonese. Fung said Lee had worked two jobs and actively helped serve Hong Kong's ethnic minority communities since the government's appeal, showing she 'had not given up on herself.' The lawyer also cited mitigation letters for Chan, including one penned by ex-district councillor Lee Yue-shun, who was acquitted of conspiring to subvert state power in the city's largest national security case last year. Lee Yue-shun was among the people in the court's public gallery on Wednesday. The letters 'show that [Chan] did not wait… He did everything he could to make up for the time lost due to this case,' including becoming a registered tree management personnel, Fung said. Ko adopted 42 months as the starting point for sentencing but lowered the jail sentence to 40 months for Lam, Lee, and So, who were under 21 at the time of the offence. He made a further three-month deduction for all five defendants after considering that they had 'all performed a certain degree of rehabilitation' during the three-and-a-half years of court proceedings since they were first acquitted. For the three defendants who changed to enter a guilty plea, the judge gave them a 25 per cent sentencing discount. He also recognised that the five had been punished for violating Hong Kong's mask ban during the first trial that concluded in December 2021. At that time, Ko sentenced Lam to a rehabilitation centre, Angie Lee to 120 hours of community service, and the remaining three to 10 weeks in prison. He made a proportional deduction for the five's sentences, saying that he would have imposed the sentences concurrently had they been found guilty of rioting in December 2021. Friends and family members waved to the defendants – except So, who did not attend the Wednesday hearing – as they were led away by correctional officers. Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing's encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as 'riots.' Out of over 10,000 arrests linked to the 2019 protests, nearly 3,000 people had been charged as of April, according to police. About 2,400 were convicted of offences ranging from rioting and unlawful assembly to wounding and arson.
HKFP
4 days ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong court to hear former Stand News editor's appeal application against sedition conviction in Sept 2026
Hong Kong's Court of Appeal will hear the appeal application of a former senior editor at defunct media outlet Stand News against his sedition conviction in September next year. The three-day hearing will begin on September 22, 2026, according to the Judiciary's court diary. Patrick Lam, the former acting chief editor at Stand News, lodged the appeal to overturn his conviction in October last year, one month after he was sentenced alongside former chief editor Chung Pui-kuen at the District Court. The pair were found guilty of 'conspiracy to publish and reproduce seditious publications' in August. The parent company of Stand News was also found guilty of the colonial-era sedition charge. Chung was sentenced to 21 months in jail, while Lam was handed a 14-month jail term. But Lam was released immediately after District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin determined that Lam would not have to serve extra time in jail after taking into account the 10 months Lam spent in pre-trial detention and his poor health. The judgment marked the first sedition conviction of journalists in Hong Kong since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. 'Tool to smear and vilify' Stand News was forced to shutter in December 2021 after national security police raided its newsroom and froze its assets. The two editors and the outlet's parent company were later charged under the colonial-era sedition offence, punishable by up to two years in jail. Judge Kwok ruled that the two editors were not conducting genuine journalism during the period of the offence, but instead 'participating in the so-called resistance.' Kwok found that the news outlet had published 11 articles ruled to be seditious, 'at a time when over half of the Hong Kong society distrusted [Beijing] and [the local] government, the police, and the judiciary.' The 11 articles, mostly opinion pieces critical of the authorities, caused 'potential detrimental consequences to national security,' the judge said. Stand News 'became a tool to smear and vilify the [Beijing] Authorities and the [Hong Kong] Government' during the 2019 protests and unrest, Kwok wrote. The homegrown national security law, known locally as Article 23, which came into effect in March 2024, raised the penalty for sedition to seven years in prison and 10 years if the offender is found to have colluded with a foreign element. Separate from the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of up to 16 days, and suspects' access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city's opposition-free legislature. The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and 'regressive.' Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to 'close loopholes' after the 2019 protests and unrest.
