Latest news with #judicial appointments
Free Malaysia Today
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory
From Apandi Ali It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment. Let's be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments. Section 27, titled 'Request for further selection by the prime minister', says the 'prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration'. Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC's recommendations. In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: 'The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.' Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made? The deafening silence over real violations What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness'. This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip. The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes. The JAC's recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required. According to the STF report: 'If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request. 'Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.' Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn't merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach. The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya. After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names: Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya. Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then? A convenient crusade for 'judicial integrity'? It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process. This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister's Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would 'give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!' And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity. Enough with the double standards The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia's legal-political culture. This isn't about upholding the law. It's about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence. If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives. Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Free Malaysia Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
It's up to the Bar, says Anwar on judicial independence walk
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called for all parties to follow the process and constitutional provisions that have been in place all this while. (Bernama pic) PUTRAJAYA : Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has no issues with the Malaysian Bar's plan to hold a peaceful walk next Monday to call for a royal commission of inquiry into judicial appointments and alleged interference in the judiciary. Anwar said it was the Bar's right to hold the gathering, but maintained that the attorney-general and Istana Negara had already touched on the issue. 'Let us follow the process and constitutional provisions that we have been practising all this while,' he told reporters after performing Friday prayers at Surau Ar-Rahim here. Anwar again welcomed proposals to amend the constitutional provisions, but maintained that he has never interfered in the court's affairs as prime minister. 'As I have already said, for the past two-and-a-half years, I have never interfered with the court's decisions.' Bar members will gather at the Palace of Justice on July 14 at 2pm to walk to the Prime Minister's Office and hand over a memorandum. The Attorney-General's Chambers had rejected calls for an RCI and a parliamentary committee to investigate alleged irregularities in judicial appointments, saying the situation did not amount to a constitutional crisis. Yesterday, Istana Negara warned against politicising the appointment of top judges, saying this process must be handled carefully, with integrity and in line with the Federal Constitution. The palace said the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 only outlined the process of selecting candidates for judicial appointments, while the authority to advise the king was solely the prime minister's. Separately, Anwar played down calls for Najib Razak to be allowed to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, after the attorney-general confirmed the existence of a royal addendum authorising it. He said the matter was in court and all parties should allow the legal process to run its course.
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judicial reform in focus as Azalina leads comparative study with UK, Australia, India and Singapore
KUALA LUMPUR, July 10 — Malaysia will now be looking at the way judges are appointed in four countries including the UK and Singapore, as part of efforts to consider how the country's judicial appointments system can be reformed. The Prime Minister's Department's Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) announced this following a preliminary discussion today between Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said with the heads of two parliamentary special select committees. 'Among other things, this discussion agreed to carry out preliminary comparative research about the approaches of the judicial appointment systems in several selected countries, namely the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Singapore. 'This preliminary comparative research will give a holistic understanding about the process of judicial appointments in countries with similar systems in order to enable Malaysia to make an evidence-based evaluation of the need for reforms and to adapt best practices according to national context. 'This research is also intended to evaluate an effective model for judicial appointments, identify best practices and recommend reforms that are appropriate for Malaysia's context as a constitutional monarchy and in line with the Federal Constitution,' BHEUU said in the statement. The statement said the Malaysian government through the BHEUU welcomes public feedback and the public's views about this matter. 'This inclusive approach is important to ensure each perspective is taken into account before the research outcome is tabled for the Cabinet's consideration. 'The government remains committed to strengthen public confidence by carrying out transparent and evidence-based reforms,' it concluded. Earlier in the statement, the BHEUU said Azalina's meeting was with the Dewan Negara's Special Select Committee on Law Review's chairman Rita Sarimah Patrick Insol and with the Dewan Rakyat's Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform's chairman MP William Leong Jee Keen. The BHEUU said the meeting was held in relation to public concern about reforms in Malaysia's judicial system to ensure the integrity of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. BHEUU said both parliamentary committees' chairman had expressed concerns over the latest developments on the issue of judicial appointments and stressed the importance of more in-depth studies to ensure a more transparent and credible process of appointing judges. Currently, in Malaysia, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) vets and selects candidates to be recommended to the prime minister. The prime minister can accept the recommendations or ask for alternative names from the JAC, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would appoint judges on the prime minister's advice and after consulting with the Conference of Rulers. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law had in 2015 published a study on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, with the report looking at 53 Commonwealth members including Malaysia. There are currently 56 countries in the Commonwealth, including India, Australia and Singapore. Recommended reading:JAC 101: The selection of Malaysia's judges, explained
Malay Mail
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Judicial reform in focus as Azalina leads comparative study with UK, Australia, India and Singapore
KUALA LUMPUR, July 10 — Malaysia will now be looking at the way judges are appointed in four countries including the UK and Singapore, as part of efforts to consider how the country's judicial appointments system can be reformed. The Prime Minister's Department's Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) announced this following a preliminary discussion today between Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said with the heads of two parliamentary special select committees. 'Among other things, this discussion agreed to carry out preliminary comparative research about the approaches of the judicial appointment systems in several selected countries, namely the United Kingdom, India, Australia and Singapore. 'This preliminary comparative research will give a holistic understanding about the process of judicial appointments in countries with similar systems in order to enable Malaysia to make an evidence-based evaluation of the need for reforms and to adapt best practices according to national context. 'This research is also intended to evaluate an effective model for judicial appointments, identify best practices and recommend reforms that are appropriate for Malaysia's context as a constitutional monarchy and in line with the Federal Constitution,' BHEUU said in the statement. The statement said the Malaysian government through the BHEUU welcomes public feedback and the public's views about this matter. 'This inclusive approach is important to ensure each perspective is taken into account before the research outcome is tabled for the Cabinet's consideration. 'The government remains committed to strengthen public confidence by carrying out transparent and evidence-based reforms,' it concluded. Earlier in the statement, the BHEUU said Azalina's meeting was with the Dewan Negara's Special Select Committee on Law Review's chairman Rita Sarimah Patrick Insol and with the Dewan Rakyat's Special Select Committee on Human Rights, Election and Institutional Reform's chairman MP William Leong Jee Keen. The BHEUU said the meeting was held in relation to public concern about reforms in Malaysia's judicial system to ensure the integrity of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. BHEUU said both parliamentary committees' chairman had expressed concerns over the latest developments on the issue of judicial appointments and stressed the importance of more in-depth studies to ensure a more transparent and credible process of appointing judges. Currently, in Malaysia, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) vets and selects candidates to be recommended to the prime minister. The prime minister can accept the recommendations or ask for alternative names from the JAC, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would appoint judges on the prime minister's advice and after consulting with the Conference of Rulers. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law had in 2015 published a study on the best practices for appointing judges in the Commonwealth, with the report looking at 53 Commonwealth members including Malaysia. There are currently 56 countries in the Commonwealth, including India, Australia and Singapore. Recommended reading: JAC 101: The selection of Malaysia's judges, explained
