STRENGTHENING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, I believe require, amongst others, the following
1 - The ROLE of Prime Minister in the appointment of Judges, as per the Federal Constitution and current law, must be REMOVED - The should appoint judges acting ONLY on the Advice of the Judicial Appointments Commission(JAC). [After the JAC Act 2009 came into force, one failure was the relevant Constitutional Amendment, to ensure that the King shall act on the advice of the JAC when it comes to appointing of Judges]
2 - The JAC Act 2009 now is flawed, as it only says JAC makes recommendations to the PM, and PM has right to request further recommendations - but there seems to not state that the PM shall act on the advice of the JAC, when he advices the King on appointments of Judges - This must be corrected by amendment, making it no longer possible for the PM to ignore the advice/recommendation of the JAC, and advice the King to appoint some other as Judge.
3 - The other issue is the INDEPENDENCE of the JAC itself, as currently 5 of the 9 member JAC are chosen by the Prime Minister. The Conference of Rulers called in 2022 for the removal of the PM's role of appointing JAC members, and others have called for the total removal of the PM in the appointment of Judges
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, on behalf of the judiciary has proposed that provisions in the Federal Constitution be amended to remove executive involvement in the appointment of judges.(FMT, 9/1/2023). In November 2022, the Conference of Rulers today proposed the removal of the prime minister's power to appoint five representatives to the nine-member Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the body which proposes candidates to be made judges in the superior courts.(Malaysia Now, 30/11/2022). In 2018, the Malaysian Bar’s then president George Varughese proposed that the government carry out reforms on the judiciary by setting up an independent JAC under the Federal Constitution that will be tasked with making “recommendations directly to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong”.Will Mahathir Get A Fair Trial Against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim When It Is Before A Judicial Commissioner, and not a Judge? Time to Abolish Judicial Commissioners.
4. Questions have arisen whether the recent appointment of Judges, since Anwar Ibrahim became PM were on the recommendation of the JAC or NOT. The government seems to have not yet clarified.
5. WAS sitting Public Prosecutor Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh even recommended by the JAC to be appointed Federal Court Judge. In my opinion no Judge or law practitioner would do that as we understand the importance of protecting the INDEPENDENCE of the Public Prosecutor., and thus will not be party to any attempt to remove the PP, by a 'creative' appointment as a Judge??
6. The delay in the appointment of the Chief Judge of Malaya also raises questions.... JAC would have recommended fast - why did Anwar delay?
Was recent appointment of judges LEGAL? Was the JAC and/or Heads of Judiciary involved in premature removal of AG/PP? When will Anwar 'OBEY' Conference of Rulers?
Amend Federal Constitution and Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 to remove Prime Minister’s role in appointment and elevation of judges in Malaysia. PM must disclose whether recent appointments is as per recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission or not. (MADPET)
The Malaysian Bar Calls for Urgent Inquiry into the Alleged Interference with the Independence of the Judiciary
19 Mar 2025 3:51 pm
At the 79th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held on 15 March 2025, the Malaysian Bar overwhelmingly adopted a resolution reaffirming its unwavering commitment to upholding and defending judicial independence. In essence, the resolution:
- Condemns in the strongest terms any
interference with the independence of the Judiciary by the Executive,
Legislature, or any other individuals or entities;
- Rejects any attempts by any person,
whether from the Executive, Legislature, the Bar, or any other
individuals or entities, to circumvent the constitutional and statutory
framework for judicial appointments as enshrined in the Federal
Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009; and
- Calls upon the Government of Malaysia to establish an independent commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into whether there was any interference in the judicial appointments process, as alluded to by the Chief Justice, to determine whether proper constitutional and statutory procedures were followed.
This resolution was adopted in relation to the speech by The Right Honourable Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat at the Opening of the Legal Year 2025. Her Ladyship’s remarks suggested that there was potential and/or improper interference in the judicial appointments process by persons outside the established statutory and constitutional framework. Such concerns go to the very heart of judicial independence and the rule of law, which are fundamental pillars of our democracy.
Judicial independence is non-negotiable. The Malaysian Bar has long been at the forefront of protecting this independence, ensuring that the Judiciary remains free from undue influence. The Judiciary must be allowed to function independently, without fear or favour.
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the Prime Minister’s statement as reported by the media on 16 March 20251 that the Government of Malaysia does not interfere in the judicial deliberation process. We take note that the Prime Minister has consistently reiterated this position on various occasions2 and we welcome his reassurance.
However, any move to “examine and monitor” the Judiciary — as stated in the Prime Minister’s statement on 16 March — outside the current constitutional framework may be construed as interference, and there must be clear justifications for why this idea was even considered.
The Malaysian Bar remains resolute in its
commitment to safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring that the
Judiciary remains free from undue influence. Any measure that
compromises judicial autonomy — whether through Executive overreach,
Legislative encroachment, or external interference — risks undermining
the fundamental principles of our democracy. The Malaysian Bar will
continue to uphold and defend the independence of the Judiciary and will
firmly oppose any initiative that threatens this cornerstone of the
rule of law.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
19 March 2025
1 “Anwar reiterates government's commitment to judicial independence”, The Star, 16 March 2025.
2 “‘Enough is enough’: PM Anwar says political interference in judiciary a thing of the past”, Malay Mail, 13 October 2024; “PM Anwar Asserts No Interference in Court Decision on Rosmah’s Acquital”, Bernama, 20 December 2024.
Source:- Malaysian Bar Website
1
Resolution Adopted at the 79th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar
(Held on 15 March 2025)
Resolution on the Judiciary and Malaysian Bar
PREAMBLE
(1) WHEREAS the purpose of the Malaysian Bar under Section 42(a) is "to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour";
(2) EXPRESSING grave concerns with the statements made by Right Honourable Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat, in her Ladyship’s speech at the Opening of Legal Year 2025, which indicates potential and/or improper interference in the judicial appointment process by persons outside the established statutory and constitutional framework. The relevant extracts of her Ladyship’s speech are as follows:
"That said, what is clear from the constitutional provisions on the appointment of Judges read with the supplementing procedure in the JACA 2009 [Judicial Appointment Commission Act 2009] is this – no person other than the JAC [Judicial Appointment Commission] and the Prime Minister can recommend candidates for appointment to all posts in the Superior Courts.
Any form of circumvention of these provisions could render those appointments either unconstitutional or in breach of written law. For this reason, no person, whether it be the President of the Malaysian Bar, any advocate or solicitor, any political party, the Attorney General or any other person for that matter has any business recommending names to the Prime Minister for appointment.
For if this is done, not only has the Judiciary been trampled upon; its independence been transgressed and eroded; it is an attempt to interfere with the course of justice by influencing the operations of the Judiciary. And any name so considered on such improper advice runs the risk of being challenged via judicial review as being either unconstitutional or in breach of the law. Any person so found to have done this also runs the risk of being charged with an offence.
I have been an ardent and firm believer in the independence of the Judiciary including the appointment of its Judges. Hence, I have steadfastly observed all the principles espoused in the Constitution and the JACA 2009. If anyone has any reason to believe that we have not done this, then I would remind you that, as the law and procedure stand, the JAC again is only but one part of the appointments process and you should perhaps point the finger elsewhere." [emphasis added]
(3) NOTING the Chief Justice's explicit warning that any form of circumvention of the statutory and constitutional provisions on judicial appointments could render such appointments unconstitutional or in breach of written law;
(4) ACKNOWLEDGING that the Judiciary is enjoying a renaissance under the leadership of the Chief Justice, which has been recognised domestically and internationally;
(5) RECOGNISING that an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a democratic society and in upholding the rule of law, and in the defence of public interest and human rights in Malaysia;
(6) VIEWING with grave concern a report by Channel News Asia on 21 Feb 2025 entitled “Upcoming leadership changes in Malaysia’s judiciary stir concerns of political intervention” regarding the retirement of 14 judges of the Federal Court that would lead to the senior judges being bypassed in favour of politically linked candidates for new appointments and promotions;
(7) RECOGNISING that any interference with the judiciary will jeopardise the nation's economic prosperity and business confidence, in particular the efforts to attract foreign investment, and to provide free and fair dispute resolution mechanisms essential for commerce, economic development and foreign investments;
(8) RECALLING that the removals of Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and the Supreme Court Judges, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988, and the events of the 1988 Judicial Crisis have been described as the “darkest chapter in the history of the Malaysian judiciary”;
(9) RECALLING the role of the Malaysian Bar that held the “Walk for Justice” on 26 June 2007 to present a memorandum to the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Abdullah Badawi, in the wake of the release of a video recording on 19 September 2007, infamously known as the “VK Lingam video”;
(10) RECALLING the role of the Malaysian Bar in the formation of the Panel of Eminent Persons to review, amongst others, the removal of the Lord President and 2 Judges of the Supreme Court in 1988;
(11) RECOGNISING the findings of the Panel of Eminent Persons in 2008 that the events surrounding the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas were a direct attack on the rule of law with the intent to attack the independence of the Judiciary and his Lordship was “totally innocent and none of the charges against him had any merit”, and that Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah were improperly removed from office;
(12) RECALLING the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission on 2 February 2009 with the intention to improve the transparency and credibility in the process of appointing judges to the Superior Courts of Malaysia;
(13) NOTING with pride that the Malaysian Bar has been at the forefront of upholding and defending the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law;
(14) RECALLING the words of the Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of The High Court which unequivocally declared:
“17. Role of Bar in the legal system is significant. The bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as Judges do not speak. People listen to the great lawyers and people are inspired by their thoughts. They are remembered and quoted with reverence. It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared…”(15) ACKNOWLEDGING the Malaysian Bar’s historical role, statutory and constitutional duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and recognising that the Malaysian Bar must respond promptly and decisively to any threats to judicial independence;
RESOLUTIONS
The Malaysian Bar, in reaffirming its commitment to uphold the Federal Constitution, the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, hereby resolves:
MOTION 1 — REGARDING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
A. To condemn in strongest terms any interference with the independence of the Judiciary by the Executive, Legislature, or any other individuals or entities; and any attempts by any person, whether from the Executive, Legislature, the Bar, or any other individuals or entities, to circumvent the constitutional and statutory framework for judicial appointments as provided in the Federal Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009; and
B. To call upon the Government of Malaysia to establish an independent commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into whether or not there was any interference as alluded to in the Chief Justice's speech, to determine whether proper constitutional and statutory procedures were followed in recent judicial appointments.
MOTION 2 — REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR IN DEFENDING THE JUDICIARY
A. To mandate that the Bar Council takes immediate and public action, including but not limited to public statements, memoranda, or legal proceedings, in response to any credible information regarding interference with judicial independence or improper influence in judicial appointments; and to reaffirm the Malaysian Bar's unwavering commitment to defend the independence of the judiciary without fear or favour, as a fundamental statutory and constitutional duty.
Source: Malaysian Bar Website
I am a bit concerned about the 'tone' of the Prime Minister's reported statement, following the passing of the Bar Resolution... maybe I will comment later in a different post. It would have been good if Malaysians could view the OFFICIAL written statement of the PM?
Anwar reiterates government's commitment to judicial independence
Sunday, 16 Mar 2025
SHAH ALAM: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reiterated the government's firm commitment not to interfere in any decisions involving the judiciary.
The Prime Minister said that the government, however, had a responsibility to ensure that those appointed to the judiciary were credible, independent and free from conflicts of interest.
"We do not interfere in the affairs of the judiciary in making decisions, but we want to ensure that those appointed are credible, independent, and free from involvement in business and corruption " he said in his speech at the 18th DAP Congress at the Ideal Convention Centre (IDCC) in Section 15 here on Sunday (March 16).
"This is our responsibility in government, as we must answer to Parliament and the people," he said, commenting on the Bar Council resolution from on Saturday (March 15).
The resolution, among other things, strongly condemned any interference by any person, whether from the executive, legislature, the Bar, or any other individuals or entities, to circumvent the constitutional and statutory framework for judicial appointments as provided in the Federal Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009.
Elaborating further, Anwar, who is also Pakatan Harapan chairman, said oversight should be conducted by independent bodies over the judiciary to ensure proper checks and balances.
"I am not interfering; there are several other processes we are discussing. This does not mean that the Prime Minister, ministers, or all judges are always right.
"There must be supervision, checks and balances, and bodies that examine and monitor the judiciary – whether they pay taxes or if there are elements of corruption, as this has occurred extensively. Therefore, every change must be implemented carefully," he said.
Anwar also emphasised that the government has never interfered in any case currently being tried in court, including those involving prominent individuals.
"I want to ask, which cases have we interfered with? Which decisions did I discuss matters with the judge? None. The Prime Minister cannot compromise or be involved in any court case," he said. – Bernama, Star, 16/3/2025
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment