Latest news with #YangdiPertuanAgong
Malay Mail
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
In latest bid, lawyer sues to make Federal Constitution's BM translation override original English text
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla has filed a lawsuit against the Malaysian government, as he wants the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Federal Constitution to be the authoritative text or to override the original text which is in English. In his court challenge filed last night at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, Haniff is seeking two main court orders. He wants the court to declare that the Federal Constitution's text in the national language is the authoritative text under Article 160B, and that this national language text would prevail over the text in the English language, if there are any conflicts or discrepancies between the two texts. Alternatively, he wants the court to order the Malaysian government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the national language text of the Federal Constitution is prescribed to be the authoritative text within five years from the court order. The Federal Constitution's Article 160B states that when the Constitution has been translated into the national language, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong 'may prescribe' the national language text to be authoritative, and that it would then prevail over the English language text if there are any conflicts or discrepancies. In his lawsuit, Haniff argued that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's 2003 'launch' of the BM translation of the Federal Constitution would amount to 'prescribing' it as the authoritative text. This is not the first time that Haniff has raised this argument in the courts to claim that the BM text is the authoritative version, as he has previously raised it on behalf of Islamic religious bodies to argue that unilateral religious conversions of children are valid. Previously, the Federal Court had in 2018 unanimously decided in Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi's case that the Federal Constitution's English text is authoritative as there is no evidence that the BM text has been prescribed to be authoritative. The Federal Court in 2024 had also unanimously in Hindu mother Loh Siew Hong's case ruled that the Federal Constitution's English text is the authoritative text and held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had not prescribed the BM translation to be authoritative. The Federal Constitution was drafted in the English language and it has been the authoritative text in Malaysia since 1963, while the BM translation was reportedly launched in 2003. The latest reprint as of 2020 of the Federal Constitution's BM translation carries this note: 'Teks ini HANYALAH TERJEMAHAN oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara bagi Federal Constitution. Melainkan jika dan sehingga ditetapkan sahih di bawah Perkara 160B Perlembagaan Persekutuan, teks ini bukan perundangan'. In English, the note means: 'This text is ONLY A TRANSLATION by the Attorney General's Chambers for the Federal Constitution. Unless and until prescribed as authoritative under Article 160B of the Federal Constitution, this text is not law.' In 2023, then attorney general Tan Sri Idrus Harun announced plans to propose for the Federal Constitution's BM text to be the authoritative text under Article 160B, and said this plan would be subject to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's approval.
Malay Mail
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Simplified: How judges are selected in Malaysia vs UK, Australia, Singapore, India
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — Amid recent controversy over the selection of new top-ranking judges in Malaysia, the government has launched a new study to compare how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India, and Singapore. Here's a simplified comparison of how judges are selected and appointed in these five Commonwealth countries, some of which have an independent body called a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Malaysia (Has JAC) Malaysia has a nine-member JAC chaired by the Chief Justice, with the other members being the other top three judges, and five members appointed by the prime minister (a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons). There is a two-step process now, namely selection and then appointment: Step 1: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) filters and selects candidates based on merit, then recommends names to the prime minister. (Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009). Note: Under the JAC Act, the PM can ask the JAC for two alternative names (for vacancies for the top four judges, Federal Court and Court of Appeal). Under the same law, the PM does not need to give any reason for rejecting the names, and there is no limit on how many times the PM can ask for other names. Step 2: After accepting JAC's recommendations, the prime minister submits the names to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Agong then appoints judges based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers (Federal Constitution's Article 122B). The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. The JAC also sends candidates' names for background checks by five agencies: the police, the anti-corruption body, the companies commission, the insolvency department, and the tax authority. The JAC, introduced in 2009, is a step forward for Malaysia as there are now written criteria and written procedures for a person to be selected as judge. — Picture by Raymond Manuel UK (Has JACs) After the UK's constitutional reforms in 2005, there are now three bodies involved in selecting and recommending potential judges (the JAC for England and Wales; Northern Ireland's JAC and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland). Looking specifically at England and Wales, the 15-member JAC is chaired by a layperson, with six judicial members, two professional members, five laypersons, and one non-legally qualified judicial member. The JAC's role is to select candidates on merit, having good character, and to encourage diversity in the range of available candidates. The JAC has a detailed list of items that a candidate has to declare when applying to be a judge (such as criminal convictions, traffic offences, being bankrupt, tax issues) to assess if they are of 'good character', and will also carry out character checks with professional regulatory bodies and the authorities such as for insolvency and tax. The JAC selects judges up to the High Court level, while the JAC would also be part of independent selection panels to select higher-ranking judges or judges at the higher courts. Generally, the Lord Chancellor (who is a Cabinet minister) may accept the JAC's recommendations, and has limited powers to reject or ask for reconsideration of recommended candidates. Generally, the King will appoint judges on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, based on the recommendation by the JAC or an independent selection panel. For certain positions such as Supreme Court judges, the Lord Chancellor's recommendation — based on the panel's recommendation — would go to the prime minister, and the prime minister would advise the King on the appointment. Australia (No JAC) Under Australia's Constitution, the Governor-General 'in Council' appoints judges. (The Governor-General is the head of state, a role that is played by the Agong in Malaysia and the King in the UK.) This means that the Governor-General appoints judges on the advice of the prime minister and Cabinet. The Attorney-General (who is part of Cabinet) makes recommendations to the Australian government on who should be appointed as judges. For the appointment of High Court judges, the federal Attorney-General is required by law to consult with the attorney-general of the states in Australia. The Attorney-General's website states that the Australian government's process for appointing judges 'may include' advertising, consulting with the legal professional community to request nominations, and getting advisory panels to assess candidates and give recommendations to the Attorney-General. The website also lists the personal and professional qualities that a judge should have, including outstanding legal expertise; excellent written communication skills; temperament, integrity, impartiality, tact and courtesy. Singapore (No JAC) Under Singapore's constitution, the President appoints judges on the prime minister's advice, if he agrees with the prime minister's advice. Before giving his advice to the President, Singapore's prime minister 'must consult' the Chief Justice on appointments of judges (except for the appointment of the Chief Justice). India (Had JAC for a few months) After amending its Constitution and creating a new law in 2014, India introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — which had the duty of recommending individuals 'of ability and integrity' for the President to appoint as judges. The NJAC was meant to be a six-member panel, chaired by the Chief Justice of India, two senior Supreme Court judges, the minister in charge of law and justice, two eminent persons. (A three-member committee comprising the CJ, the prime minister, the Opposition Leader would nominate the NJAC's two eminent persons, with one of the eminent persons required to be a woman or from a minority or marginalised group.) But just months after the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act came into effect in April 2015, India's highest court, the Supreme Court, in October 2015 struck down both laws as unconstitutional. India then returned to using its existing 'collegium' system, which is where a group of senior judges select and recommend candidates for the President to appoint. For example, to appoint new Supreme Court judges, there would be a collegium of five judges (the Chief Justice and the four most senior Supreme Court judges), who would give their recommended names via the Chief Justice to India's government. The Chief Justice would give the recommendation to the law minister, who would then forward the recommendation to the prime minister to advise the President on the appointment of the new judges. To JAC or not? Like Malaysia, the four other countries we are looking at are members of the 56-member Commonwealth. In the UK-based Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's 2015 report on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, it was found that it is now 'uncommon' for only the executive branch of government to be responsible for appointing judges. At that time, the report found that 18.7 per cent (nine out of 48 independent Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Singapore) was where the executive was solely responsible for judicial appointments, while 81.3 per cent (39 out of 48 such as India, Malaysia, UK) had a JAC. This figure will now be 38 out of 48 as India has scrapped its JAC, but the 2015 report had noted that a number of countries, which established JACs in relatively quick succession (including the UK, the Maldives, Pakistan and Malaysia) after 2003 showed a 'clear trend' favouring JACs. Recommended reading:
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
PM: No judges removed, eight Court of Appeal and 14 High Court judges to be sworn in July 28
PERMATANG PAUH, July 19 — Eight newly appointed Court of Appeal judges and 14 High Court judges are scheduled to be sworn in on July 28, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He said the appointment process had gone through all the necessary stages including the assessment by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), discussions with the Malay Rulers and the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. 'Many have asked me why it was not announced earlier. I cannot answer arbitrarily because the process of appointing judges involves the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. 'It needs to go through discussions with the Rulers and after it is agreed, it will then be brought back to the Agong for consent,' he said in his speech when launching the Bumiputera Master Plan, Tunas MADANI and JKPSB Housing Project here today. He stressed that no judges were removed or dismissed as some parties have portrayed, rather the process of selecting new judges must be done carefully and with full respect for the Constitutional Monarchy system. — Bernama MORE TO COME
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Wan Ahmad Farid is Malaysia's new chief justice
Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh has also been elevated to the Federal Court to allow him to helm the highest office in the judiciary. (Wikipedia pic) PETALING JAYA : Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh has been appointed as Malaysia's new chief justice, taking over the post from Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat who retired earlier this month. In a statement, the office of the chief registrar said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had also consented to Abu Bakar Jais's appointment as president of the Court of Appeal and Azizah Nawawi's appointment as Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak. They will be sworn in and presented their letters of appointment at Istana Negara on July 28. The statement said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong consented to the appointments on the advice of the prime minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, which is in line with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim is currently serving as acting chief justice following the retirement of Tengku Maimun, while Federal Court judge Zabariah Yusof is acting Court of Appeal president after Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim retired two weeks ago. Wan Ahmad Farid, a Court of Appeal judge, has also been elevated to the Federal Court to allow him to helm the highest office in the judiciary. He was appointed as a judicial commissioner in December 2015 before being elevated to the High Court in 2019 and then the Court of Appeal in November 2024. Wan Ahmad Farid served as the political secretary to former prime minister, the late Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and was an Umno member. However, he quit politics in 2013. The 62-year-old had also served as a deputy home minister for just over a year, between 2008 and 2009, and was a senator from 2005-2009. In 2009, Wan Ahmad Farid was the Barisan Nasional candidate in the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary by-election but lost to PAS's Abdul Wahid Endut. Abu Bakar, 63, started his career in the Attorney-General's Chambers before going into private practice. He was appointed judicial commissioner in 2013 and elevated as High Court Judge three years later. Abu Bakar was promoted to the Court of Appeal in December 2019 and to the Federal Court in June 2023. Azizah is the first woman to be appointed Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak. She will replace Abdul Rahman Sebli, who is set to retire on July 24. Azizah has served at the Court of Appeal since August 2019. She was made judicial commissioner in November 2012 and elevated to the High Court in September 2014.
Malay Mail
5 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Selangor Sultan: Judicial appointments must follow the law
SHAH ALAM, July 17 — The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has emphasised that the appointment of senior judges to the superior courts must comply with all legal provisions, particularly under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. This was among the matters Sultan Sharafuddin emphasised while chairing the 269th Meeting of the Conference of Rulers yesterday. The meeting had discussed, among other things, appointments for the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as other judges of the superior courts. In this regard, Sultan Sharafuddin fully supports the statement issued by Istana Negara on July 10 regarding the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal and other key positions in the judiciary, upon the advice of the Prime Minister and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers. 'The process provided for under the Federal Constitution must be carried out transparently and carefully, in order to uphold the rule of law and support the principles of justice that form the core of governance in this country. 'In this connection, all parties are urged to refrain from making any speculation or unfounded accusations without complete and verified facts,' His Royal Highness said in a statement today. Sultan Sharafuddin also expressed gratitude that the meeting was conducted smoothly and successfully. — Bernama
