Latest news with #JudicialAppointments
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Lawyer drops Judicial Appointments Commission court challenge after Azalina signals reform
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Lawyer Datuk Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim today dropped his court case which sought to challenge the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), just months after filing it. In a press statement today, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan said he was withdrawing the case, as the government recently said it was willing to look into reforms on how judges are appointed in Malaysia. 'This decision follows recent public statements by the Honourable Minister of Law and Institutional Reform, YB Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, who has acknowledged that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 ('JAC Act') is open to improvement and that the government is willing to engage with all stakeholders in efforts to reform and strengthen the legislative framework governing judicial appointments. 'Given the government's clear position and willingness to address the concerns raised, I am of the view that the constitutional challenge is no longer necessary at this juncture,' he said in his statement. 'With the recent appointments of the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal having been completed in accordance with Article 122B of the Constitution, I am also satisfied that there is no immediate prejudice or uncertainty affecting the leadership of the judiciary,' he also said later in the same statement. Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan had on April 8 filed his lawsuit against the Malaysian government and the JAC. In his lawsuit, he had wanted the courts to invalidate both the JAC and the JAC Act 2009. He had also wanted a court order for the prime minister to follow the constitutional process for the appointment of judges without what he described as 'interference' by the JAC. Previously, he had also applied to bring 16 questions on constitutional law to the Federal Court. Both the main court challenge and the lawyer's bid to refer the 16 constitutional questions to the Federal Court have not been heard yet, and both have now been dropped. Last Wednesday, the High Court reportedly scheduled September 11 to hear the Malaysian Bar's application to get the JAC's meeting minutes from January 2023 until now, before it hears the application to refer the constitutional questions. In announcing his dropping of the entire court challenge today, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan said he had filed the lawsuit 'in good faith' to test whether the JAC Act is valid constitutionally, to raise awareness of its alleged structural shortcomings, and to encourage public discussion on the need for institutional safeguards that are consistent with the Constitution. He urged the Malaysian government to study the questions he had raised about the process to appoint judges in Malaysia, as well as whether the Federal Constitution needs to be amended to align the JAC framework with the country's constitutional structure and values. When contacted by Malay Mail, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's lawyer Daniel Annamalai confirmed that his client had today filed in court for the case to be discontinued and withdrawn.
Free Malaysia Today
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Why the fuss over judicial appointments system now, says Azalina
Azalina Othman Said said the Judicial Appointments Commission Act had been used without issue since 2009 until most recently. PUTRAJAYA : The recent controversy surrounding the judicial appointments system has left law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said wondering why there is now an issue when the law has been used since 2009 without fuss. 'The Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which has been passed and established since 2009, has been used in the appointments of five chief justices. There's never been an issue. Suddenly, now there's an issue,' she said today. 'We have to really study where the non-clarity or confusion came in. Is it the process or is it the wording?' However, she acknowledged that improvements could be needed. Azalina said a special committee will be established, comprising members of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, as well as constitutional experts, legal practitioners and academics, to review the Judicial Appointments Commission Act. '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,' she said. Her remarks come a day after several hundred lawyers took part in a march in Putrajaya, calling for top judicial positions to be filled as soon as possible by judges who command respect from their peers, lawyers, and the public. On Saturday, Azalina addressed concerns that Putrajaya had allegedly ignored recommendations by the Judicial Appointments Commission when it was headed by then chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. The recommendations were for the appointment of her successor and the next Court of Appeal president. Responding to criticisms over the delay in appointing senior judges, she said the commission's recommendations were not binding on the prime minister. However, former law minister Zaid Ibrahim had called for clarity over the issue, saying the prime minister was bound to forward the commission's recommendations to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Critics have said that although the commission was set up to act as a check on the prime minister's constitutional powers to advise the king on judicial appointments, the prime minister continues to hold significant influence as five of the commission's nine members are appointed by him. Separation of AG and PP On the long-awaited reform to separate the roles of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor, Azalina said the groundwork had been done. 'We have done the study. We are just fine-tuning certain points,' she said. The financial implications were still being reviewed as the Attorney-General's Chambers had said the restructuring would require financing. Earlier, a senior official of the legal affairs division said the final report on the study had been completed and would be presented to the Cabinet in a week or two.
Malay Mail
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Procedural flaw in JAC proceedings? — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 8 — Concerns have been raised about the short-notice urgent meeting allegedly called by the Acting Chief Justice Datuk Seri Hasnah Hashim. Reference has been made to Section 13(2) of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, which states that at least ten days' notice in writing or by electronic mail shall be given to the members of the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). It may be said that the 10-day notice is procedural in nature. JAC members, who are no ordinary folks, may consent to a shorter notice having regards to attending circumstances. Or they may raise it (the short notice) with the Acting Chief Justice. Chief Justice of Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim is pictured at the Opening Ceremony of the 2025 Legislative Year at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre (PICC) January 8, 2025. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Let us not be like the Malay saying: 'lebih sudu dari kuah'. When the short-notice urgent meeting was disclosed to the media, I would respectfully say in Malay: 'ada yang lebih sudu dari kuah'. One has to be mindful of Sections 15 and 16 of the JAC Act. Section 15(c) says that no act done or proceeding taken under the Act shall be questioned on the ground of an omission, a defect or an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. Section 16 empowers the JAC to determine its own procedure. So, can one say that the alleged short-notice urgent meeting was flawed for non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act? * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
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.
Malay Mail
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Secrecy of JAC proceedings must not be compromised — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 7 — Acting Chief Justice Datuk Seri Hasnah Hashim had reportedly called for an urgent meeting of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), according to sources. The unnamed source stated that the meeting was scheduled for 3pm on July 4, despite Section 13(2) of the JAC Act 2009 requiring at least 10 days' written notice to be given to commission members. 'The purpose of the urgent meeting is unclear,' a source said. It is concerning that the sources cited Section 13(2) of the JAC Act but ignored Section 32 of the same Act. Section 32 mandates and obligates every member, officer and servant of the JAC to secrecy in the course of his duties, whether during or after his tenure of office or employment. According to the author, the acting Chief Justice Datuk Seri Hasnah Hashim must act against the sources if they contravene Section 32. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa If the Acting Chief Justice had called for a meeting not in compliance with Section 13(2), then it is members of JAC who must raise it with the Acting Chief Justice. These members are no ordinary folks. They are learned people of the law. It is, again, concerning that the sources should disclose the alleged call for an urgent meeting to the media when Section 32(1) says that no member, officers and servants of JA 'shall disclose any information or document obtained by him in the course of his duties'. Section 34(4) says any person who contravenes the provision 'commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.' The Acting Chief Justice must act against the sources if they contravene Section 32. Secrecy of proceedings of JAC must not be compromised. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
