Latest news with #DanielAnnamalai
Free Malaysia Today
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Court to hear Bar's bid for JAC minutes in September
Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim (left) with his lawyers Simrenjit Singh and Daniel Annamalai (right) outside the High Court after today's proceedings. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court has agreed to hear an application by the Malaysian Bar seeking the disclosure of the minutes of every meeting held by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) since January 2023. The application is tied to an ongoing suit brought by lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim in which the Bar appears as an intervener. In his suit, Syed Amir is challenging the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009. At case management today, Justice Amarjeet Singh gave Syed Amir and the defendants – the government and the JAC – until July 30 to file their affidavits in reply. The judge also set Aug 30 as the deadline for all parties to tender their written submissions. The Bar's application, filed last week, contends that the JAC minutes must be sighted to resolve factual disputes raised in Syed Amir's amended originating summons. In an affidavit filed in support of the Bar's application, its secretary, Murshidah Mustafa, said the documents would assist the court in determining whether the case warrants referral to the Federal Court. Earlier, Syed Amir's counsel, Simrenjit Singh, urged Amarjeet to hear his client's reference application to the Federal Court first. 'The JAC members have an overreaching influence on the executive, which is not envisaged by the Federal Constitution,' said Simrenjit, who was assisted by Daniel Annamalai. That position was supported by senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly, appearing for the defendants. Counsel Christopher Leong, appearing for the Bar, however, called for the court to dispose of the discovery application first, pointing out that Syed Amir had in his affidavit alleged executive interference in the exercise by the JAC of its functions. 'Our application will become academic should the court allow the plaintiff's reference application,' said Leong, who appeared with B Anand Raj and Abdul Rashid Ismail. Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, acting for Bersih – granted amicus curiae status in the proceedings – said the Bar's application should take precedence. 'The JAC Act is not unconstitutional and the plaintiff's 16 legal questions for reference are too general,' the MP and former deputy law minister said. Syed Amir filed his reference application on June 25. He is seeking a ruling as to whether the JAC Act 2009 contravenes the constitution, and whether judicial appointments made under the Act are rendered void as a result. His originating summons, filed in April, challenges the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009, its alignment with the Federal Constitution, and the legitimacy of all judicial appointments made under its purview. He argues that the Act impinges on the supremacy of the constitution, as provided by Article 4, and that it is invalid as it violates Article 38(4), having been passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers. Syed Amir further claims that the commission's powers breach the doctrine of separation of powers and the constitution's basic structure. He is seeking a mandamus order to compel strict adherence to Article 122B of the constitution, arguing that the prime minister has absolute discretion in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments. The JAC is responsible for nominating judges to the superior courts and recommending candidates for top judicial roles, including chief justice and chief judges for Malaya and Sabah & Sarawak. Syed Amir contends that his legal questions are neither academic nor hypothetical, and that the outcome of the suit may affect all judicial appointments made since 2009.
Free Malaysia Today
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
July 16 hearing on lawyer's bid to challenge JAC's constitutionality
The KL High Court has to determine whether the questions posed crossed the threshold of Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for it to send the case to the apex court, which is the 'guardian of the Federal Constitution'. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court will hear on July 16 a lawyer's application to refer several legal questions to the Federal Court regarding the constitutionality of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and its authority to propose candidates for judicial appointments. Counsel Daniel Annamalai, who is appearing for Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim, said the court notified the parties about the matter via e-mail last week. That date was fixed in May by Justice Amarjeet Singh to hear Syed Amir's originating summons on the same subject matter. Syed Amir withdrew his stay application to suspend JAC activities and instead filed 16 questions of law on June 25 for the determination of the Federal Court. Amarjeet has to now determine whether the questions crossed the threshold of Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for him to send the case to the apex court, which is the 'guardian of the Federal Constitution'. Syed Amir has named the government and JAC as defendants. Annamalai said the Bar Council would remain as an intervener in the latest application. Syed Amir is seeking a ruling on whether the JAC Act 2009 contravenes the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, and whether judicial appointments made under the Act are rendered void as a result. He also questions whether the establishment of the JAC – without an express constitutional amendment and without consultation with the Conference of Rulers as required under Article 38(4) – invalidates the Act. In the originating summons filed in early April, Syed Amir argues that the powers vested in the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution. He is seeking a mandamus order to compel the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. He further claims that the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which declares the written constitution as the supreme law of the land. Under the JAC Act, the commission is tasked with proposing nominees for judicial appointments to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. It also recommends candidates for the positions of chief justice, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Malaya, and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak when vacancies arise. Syed Amir asserts that the questions were neither academic nor hypothetical but directly affect the validity of all judicial appointments made in Malaysia since 2009. He also maintains that Article 122B of the Federal Constitution grants the prime minister absolute discretion to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments.
Free Malaysia Today
26-06-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-Astro worker facing 743 charges to undergo psych evaluation
The Kuala Lumpur sessions court interpreter earlier read out 132 charges against the accused of altering Astro's customer management system to convert regular customer accounts into corporate accounts. KUALA LUMPUR : A former Astro employee facing 743 charges over unauthorised data system modifications has been ordered by the sessions court here to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Judge Norma Ismail ordered Nora Idayu Jaafar, 48, to undergo a one-month evaluation at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta in Perak beginning June 30, after her lawyer raised her health condition during mitigation today. Lawyer Daniel Annamalai said Nora had gone to a private clinic on June 6, where the doctor suspected she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD and referred her to a specialist. A referral letter from the clinic was furnished to the court. When asked by the judge if she was ever diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, the accused claimed to have suffered from one prior to being charged earlier this month. She said she never sought treatment as she was preoccupied with a child custody battle in the shariah courts. Daniel also said Nora's husband had resigned from his job last week to take care of her. She is currently unemployed. Earlier, the court interpreter read out 132 charges against the accused of altering Astro's customer management system to convert regular customer accounts into corporate accounts. The offences were said to have been committed between 2013 and 2020 at Astro's office at Menara Icon on Jalan Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur. The charges were framed under Section 5(1) of the Computer Crimes Act 1997, which carries a maximum fine of RM100,000, up to seven years in jail, or both, upon conviction. Nora claimed trial to all of the charges. Today's session was a continuation from the June 4 court date, which was adjourned after Nora fainted when the 90th charge was read to her. Today, she was allowed to sit down in the dock while the charges were read out to her. The court fixed July 29 for an update of her mental condition before a decision is made on whether to proceed with the rest of the charges.
Malay Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
In challenge against Malaysia's judge appointment process, lawyer seeks Federal Court ruling on 16 constitutional questions
KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — A lawyer is now seeking the High Court's nod for him to bring 16 questions on constitutional law to the Federal Court, as part of his court bid to challenge the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and its role in recommending candidates to be appointed as judges in Malaysia. Lawyer Datuk Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim filed his application at the High Court this afternoon, asking the High Court to order that the 16 questions be referred to the Federal Court to be decided there. He also wants the High Court to stay his main lawsuit until the Federal Court decides on the 16 constitutional questions. When contacted by Malay Mail, lawyer Daniel Annamalai confirmed that his client Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan had filed the application to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court. At the time of writing, the High Court is still scheduled to hear on July 16 Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's main lawsuit, where he is seeking to invalidate both the JAC and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act 2009). In his main lawsuit, he also wants the court to order the prime minister to follow the constitutional process for the appointment of judges without what he described as 'interference' by the JAC. Currently, the JAC filters and selects suitable candidates before recommending them to the prime minister. The prime minister can either accept the JAC's recommendations or ask the JAC to give alternative names. Civil society has noted that the prime minister is not required to say why he rejected the JAC's recommendations, and there are also no limits to the number of times he can reject the recommended names. Under the Federal Constitution's Article 122B, the prime minister then gives advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who then appoints the top four judges (including the Chief Justice) and judges (at the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court). What do the 16 constitutional questions cover? The 16 constitutional questions mainly cover areas such as whether the JAC Act 2009 is unconstitutional. The questions also cover issues such as whether the prime minister's role in the process of appointment of judges had been reduced or become meaningless because of the JAC. The 16 questions include: whether the JAC Act 2009 is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution's Article 122B; whether appointments of judges made according to the JAC Act can be challenged as invalid, if the JAC Act is found to be unconstitutional; whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's role and the prime minister's role under Article 122B(1) are unconstitutionally diminished by JAC's recommendations; whether the prime minister's constitutional role in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is made 'redundant or meaningless' by the JAC's statutory mechanisms; and whether the appointment of judges upon an 'unelected' JAC's recommendation infringes the Federal Constitution's Article 4(1), 8(1) and 122B. In an affidavit filed today in court to support his application on the 16 constitutional questions, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan argued that these questions are 'not academic or hypothetical'. He claimed the questions directly affect the validity of all appointments of judges made in Malaysia since 2009. He argued that Article 122B gives the prime minister 'absolute discretion' to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointment of judges. He also said the Federal Court as the Federal Constitution's guardian should decide on the 16 constitutional questions — which include whether the JAC Act is constitutional and consistent with Article 122B.
Free Malaysia Today
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Lawyer drops bid to suspend JAC's activities
Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim now intends to pose his legal question to the Federal Court. KUALA LUMPUR : Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim has withdrawn his application to bar the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) from recommending judicial appointments and filling top administrative posts in the judiciary. Justice Amarjeet Singh, who had been scheduled to hear oral submissions today, was informed by counsel Daniel Annamalai that his client had instructed him to withdraw the stay application. The judge then struck out the application with no order as to costs. Daniel told reporters later that Syed Amir had declined to proceed with the stay application as he is planning to apply for constitutional questions to be referred to the Federal Court for determination. In his main suit filed in early April, Syed Amir contended that the powers conferred on the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution. He is seeking a mandamus order compelling the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the constitution. Syed Amir claims that the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which states that the written constitution is the supreme law of the land. Under the JAC Act, the commission proposes the nomination of judges to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. It also recommends nominees for the posts of chief justice, the Court of Appeal president, the chief judge of Malaya, and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak as and when they fall vacant. Syed Amir's application was made under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to persuade Amarjeet to refer the legal question posed to the apex court. Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government and JAC, while lawyers Christopher Leong and Karen Cheah represented the Bar Council, which had filed their written submissions. Amarjeet is scheduled to hear the main suit on July 16.
