SECURITY OF TENURE - is safeguard to protect the INDEPENDENCE of Judges, and in case, of Judges, their RETIREMENT Age is 66, and to remove a JUDGE is extremely difficult. This GUARANTEE of tenure will ensure(generally) that Judges will act fairly even in cases involving the government, or even the sitting Prime Minister/Minister.
If the Prime Minister and/or government of the day have the power/capacity to extend tenure/contract beyond retirement age, would some Judges behave in such a way not to antagonize or 'anger' the Prime Minister, which may translate into no or reduced possibility of the extension of tenure post retirement age?
This 'Security of Tenure' should also be applicable to ALL in law enforcement, prosecution too...
Let us look at Azam Baki, born on May 12, 1963, who is a public officer, meaning that his official retirement as public officer age is 60. He ought to have retired in 2023, when he reached the age of 60.
Azam Baki was appointed MACC chief commissioner on March 9, 2020 for a three-year tenure. His contract was extended for one year last year. Last year, his tenure was extended for another year, ending on May 12,2024. Thereafter, again in 2024, Azam Baki’s contract as the chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has been extended for one year - now to end on 11/5/2025.
After his retirement date on May 12 2023, our Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim extended his contract for ONE(1) year, and then another year. This means he retains his position post retirement because of PM Anwar's decision. QUESTION, would he now be 'compromised' in terms of his independence and professionalism because of this 'BENEFIT' he received post-retirement? Would he now listen and do as PM Anwar wants, maybe hoping for a further contract extension? The possibility of independence be 'compromised' is real, but some people, possibly also Azam Baki, may continue to act independently and professionally, having no regard to wishes or 'instructions' from the PM.
In my opinion, public officers should RETIRE on their retirement age, and there should not be any post-retirement contract extension at all for MACC Chief, or any heads of law enforcement agencies. If public officers are appointed to any position in the civil service, their appointment shall be until they reach retirement age - not for any other fixed term.
Same too for Judges, they should retire at 66 - and, eventhough the Constitution provides for a 6-month extension possibility, they should reject any such extensions noting that in Malaysian law, any such extension can only happen if the sitting Prime Minister desires it. Further, not all judges get this 6-month extension - if we want judges to serve longer, then increase their retirement age...FULL STOP.
The ONLY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE that warrants an extension should be for Judges, who are involved in trials/hearings and need more time to complete the trial/hearing of appeals, etc. Even, if any extension is given, said Judges should be confined to simply completing their trial, or the hearing of that particular appeal.
NAJIB's 1MDB Trial - The judge hearing a trial, where witnesses are called to give evidence, it is JUST if the same judge hears the case until the very end. The trial judge also looks at the witnesses, their behaviour in court - and make an assessment as to the credibility of witness, and decides on the weight that ought to be given to the testimony/evidence that the said witness - how credible? Can it be accepted as truth or not. That is why Judge Colin Sequerah is continuing to hear the trial despite him being elevated to now be a Court of Appeal Judge. That is the very reason why he(the same Judge) should continue to personally hear the case until the very end. It is stated that Judge Colin Sequerah may be retiring in a year, and this is a case where EXTENSION should be given for him to completely hear the case until the very end, no matter how long this trial that began in 2019 takes. Post-retirement, he should only be allowed to deal with trials yet to be completed - and NOTHING else that is new.
Sequerah, who will reach retirement age next year, warned both parties not to drag the trial out further.At the Federal Court too, in the Sisters of Islam case, one of the 5 judge panel hearing it is scheduled to retire very soon. The submissions have all been made, and what is pending is only the decision. Here too, it is logical and MOST JUST that the about to retire Judge remains until the decision of the Federal Court is handed down. It is argued that even if one judge retires, the other 4 can still hand down a decision - but what happens if it a hung decision 2-2, and so, other that a RE-HEARING of the Appeal, it is best that the retiring judge's term be extended until the Federal Court hands down a decision.
Before proceedings commenced, a court registrar said she was instructed by Tengku Maimun to ask if the parties wished to have the appeal re-heard as Karim is set to go on mandatory retirement next month.PROBLEM with the appointment and/or elevation of Judges in Malaysia
There is a PROBLEM with the appointment and/or elevation of Judges in Malaysia - The question is whether Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is picking Judges as he pleases, not even following the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and contrary to the recommendations of chiefs of the Judiciary.
This is a MOST SERIOUS MATTER - because PM Anwar Ibrahim is also a party in proceedings before the Court (one example is the sexual harassment suit by Yusoff Rawther). He could also be charged and brought to Court for some criminal offence, as he was before for corruption and Sodomy cases. THUS, it now becomes most important that the Prime Minister(head of the Executive branch of government) must be totally removed from the appointment/elevation of Judges.
NOW, even the Judicial Appointments Commission Act is 'defective' as it does not make it MANDATORY for the Prime Minister to act on the recommendation of the JACs - meaning that he still can ignore the recommendations - and chose his own judges, including
Despite, the coming into force the the Judicial Appointment Commission Act 2009, the Federal Constitution was not amended, and still gives the power to the Prime Minister in the appointing of judges. The provision of 'consulting' the Conference of Rulers, and the relevant judges is just that - consulting only, the PM is not bound to follow what the conference of Rulers or them senior judges, opinion.
RIGHTFULLY, the Prime Minister's role ought to be removed, and the King should appoint judges on the ADVICE of the Judicial Appointments Commission
Article 122B Federal Constitution - Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts
(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122C) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.
(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.
(3) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of the Chief Judge of a High Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Judge of each of the High Courts and, if the appointment is to the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, the Chief Minister of each of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
(4) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice, President or a Chief Judge, the Prime Minister shall consult, if the appointment is to the Federal Court, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, if the appointment is to the Court of Appeal, the President of the Court of Appeal and, if the appointment is to one of the High Courts, the Chief Judge of that Court.
Then, there is a problem with the Judicial Appointment Commission, where now the Prime Minister can appoint 5 out of the 9 members of the said Commission - and this 5 can decide on Judges to be appointed and/or elevated. This is a PROBLEM, where the Rulers Conference highlighted and 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), - but to date PM Anwar and the government is yet to act on the proposal of Conference of Rulers.
The judiciary has proposed that provisions in the Federal Constitution be amended to remove executive involvement in the appointment of judges. This was revealed by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat,...
Section 5 Constitution of the Commission JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2009(1) The Commission shall consist of the following members:
(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court who shall be the Chairman;
(b) the President of the Court of Appeal;
(c) the Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya;
(d) the Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak;
(e) a Federal Court judge to be appointed by the Prime Minister; and
(f) four eminent persons, who are not members of the executive or other public service, appointed by the Prime Minister after consulting the Bar Council of Malaysia, the Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Attorney General of a State legal service or any other relevant bodies.
There is an URGENT need for the removal of the Prime Minister from the appointment of judges in Malaysia.
With regard to extension of tenure, post retirement age, that provision also need to be amended - where extension of tenure is ONLY for Judges to complete trials they have been hearing, or determination of Appeals where hearing started but decision pending. That extension is only for such fixed purposes.
We have ENOUGH Judges to replace retired Judges. Likewise, we have more than enough other qualified public officers to replace public officers that retire, more so in law enforcement and prosecution - the administration of justice mechanisms.
What happens to a JUDGE after his retirement is also an issue that need to be addressed. When he suddenly is appointed to certain positions - it can raise the possibility of 'corruption'/wrongdoing - and the appointment is a 'thank you or 'payment' ' for services rendered whilst in office - The Malaysian Bar previously proposed a 'COOLING OFF PERIOD' for Judges, which should also be reconsidered..
See also:-
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.
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)
Chief Judge of Malaya - none since February 29? Why is Anwar delaying? Appoint NOW...
Urgent Need to Appoint a New Chief Judge of Malaya(Malaysian Bar) - vacant since 29 February. PM Anwar Ibrahim MUST explain??
Lawyers Wan Mohammad Arfan Wan Othman (left) and Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, in the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, on Wednesday. In this trial, Najib is accused of four abuse of power and 21 money-laundering charges. (Photo by Sam Fong/The Edge)
PUTRAJAYA (March 12): Court of Appeal judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah expressed frustration on Wednesday over delays in the 1Malaysia-Development Bhd (1MDB)-Tanore trial, as former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyers failed to propose alternative dates to replace vacated ones.
This led Sequerah to remark that although the trial is at its "tail end", the "tail is very long".
Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah could not suggest new dates, citing a packed schedule with other cases.
The exchange became heated, with Sequerah emphasising the trial’s prolonged duration and urging that it must not continue indefinitely.
Sequerah: This trial has dragged on for too long…there must be light at the end of the tunnel. [It is] approaching seven years now.
Shafee: Yes Yang Arif, but that is the nature of this case. You have never seen anything like it before, whether in practice or on the bench.
Sequerah: Yes, but the trial keeps prolonging. You cannot keep prolonging.
Shafee: But not at the expense of my health.
Sequerah: No, no, but just get more dates.
Sequerah, who will reach retirement age next year, warned both parties not to drag the trial out further.
The mandatory retirement age is 66, but judges may be given a six-month extension.
The prosecution and defence are expected to finalise more trial dates by the end of the day.
Defence witness and retired police investigation officer R Rajagopal then took the stand for Shafee’s examination-in-chief.
In this trial, Najib is accused of four abuse of power and 21 money-laundering charges.
Sequerah had ordered the former finance minister to enter his defence for all charges, after finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against him. - Edge, 12/3/2025
Top court reserves judgment in SIS Forum’s appeal over ‘deviant’ fatwa
A five-member Federal Court bench today heard the appeal although one member of the coram will go on mandatory retirement next month.
At the close of submissions today, a five-member bench chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said a ruling would be delivered at a later date.Also on the panel were Justices Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Nallini Pathmanathan, Abu Bakar Jais and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.
Before proceedings commenced, a court registrar said she was instructed by Tengku Maimun to ask if the parties wished to have the appeal re-heard as Karim is set to go on mandatory retirement next month.
When proceedings began, lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, acting for SIS and Zainah, said his clients wanted to proceed with the appeal.
“There is no justification for the matter to be reheard,” he said, adding that this case has been before the courts for quite some time.
Malik said Section 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 permits the remaining members of a coram to deliver a ruling even if one judge were to retire.
He also said Section 78(2) provides that a rehearing should only be held if the judges are unable to arrive at a majority decision.
Counsel Haniff Khatri Abdulla, representing the Selangor fatwa council, said he would leave the decision to the bench.
The present bench had on Dec 2 heard submissions from Malik and Haniff.
Both Selangor legal adviser Salim Soib, representing the Selangor government, and lawyer Yusfarizal Yussoff, appearing for the Selangor Islamic religious council (Mais), also left the matter to the judges.
After a short deliberation, Tengku Maimun announced that the bench would hear the appeal and deliver its ruling.
SIS is appealing against a Court of Appeal decision handed down in 2023 which dismissed its challenge of a fatwa imposed by the Selangor religious authorities 11 years ago.
In the 2014 fatwa, Mais decreed that SIS had deviated from the teachings of Islam by subscribing to liberalism and religious pluralism.
Announcing the majority decision, Justice Che Ruzima Ghazali said the fatwa was “not conclusive” and that SIS could request the fatwa committee to review its decision and furnish evidence to the body to contradict its findings.
Justice Has Zanah Mehat, now retired, concurred with Che Ruzima.
However, Justice M Gunalan, also since retired, dissented. He said the High Court had erred as, unlike individuals, SIS could not profess a religion.
Today, Yusfarizal told the apex court that it ought to interpret “person” according to the definition set out in the Interpretation Act to include a corporate or unincorporated body of persons.
“SIS is a company. Its directors and shareholders must be said to profess the religion of Islam.”
He said the court must take a purposive approach in interpreting a statute to determine whether a person is a Muslim.
“So a fatwa could be applied to a Muslim, and in this case to SIS,” he added.
Salim also urged the bench to dismiss SIS’s appeal and affirm the Court of Appeal ruling. He said fatwas are binding on Muslims, as already decided in several apex court rulings.
He said an artificial person like SIS may not profess Islam but it must subscribe to the religion’s belief and philosophy.
In his reply, Malik said his client had no issue with fatwas, but said they could not be gazetted to label individuals, organisations or institutions, including SIS, who believe in liberalism and religious pluralism as having deviated from the teachings of Islam.
He said under a Selangor Islamic religious enactment only a living person could profess Islam and be subjected to fatwas.
Malik also said SIS was beyond the reach of the state fatwa committee.
“The respondents’ (Selangor religious authorities) intention is positive but the mechanism used to include a body corporate to profess the Islamic religion is problematic,” he said.
He also said there had been a breach of natural justice as his client had not been given the right to be heard before the fatwa was gazetted. - FMT, 12/3/2025
Tenures of 6 top judges extended, Tengku Maimun’s position unclear, say sources
Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim will now remain in office until Nov 14 but Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil may not be keen to continue.
However, they said the status of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat remains unclear.
Sources said Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim, who assumed office last November, will now remain in office until Nov 14. She will be 66 on May 13.
Others who are said to have been offered extensions are Justices Zabariah Yusof, due to retire on April 10, Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil (April 10) and Hanipah Farikullah (May 23).
“However, Abdul Karim is not keen to take up the offer,” a source told FMT.
Article 125 of the Federal Constitution states that superior court judges shall hold office until 66 years, but their tenure can be extended for up to six months if approved by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The Judicial Appointments Commission had earlier submitted the names of judges it recommends for extensions.
“A copy of the list is usually sent to the Prime Minister’s Department (Office) as these extensions come with financial implications for the government,” the source added.
The second batch of judges who are expected to get their letters are Court of Appeal President Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, set to retire on July 1, and Justice Nallini Pathmanathan (Aug 21).
“However, at this juncture, for reasons best known to the appointing authorities, Tengku Maimun’s position remains unclear,” the source added.
Tengku Maimun, the first woman to be appointed the nation’s top judge, took office in May 2019 and will retire on June 30 this year.
At the opening of the legal year in January, she called for the judiciary’s independence to be defended at all costs and said there should be no interference by “outside parties” in the appointment and elevation of judges, topics that may have spooked the executive.
Meanwhile, Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal is set to retire on April 21, and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli on July 25. Both are already into their extended tenures.
All other apex court judges — Justices Rhodzariah Bujang, Nordin Hassan, Abu Bakar Jais, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera and Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh — will remain in office for between three and eight years.
Meanwhile, Tengku Maimun is said to be having a challenging task of fixing the coram of judges to hear criminal and civil appeals as no news has been forthcoming about whether the extensions would be granted.
“She wants to ensure all three judges on these panels are still in office when judgments are delivered,” a source said.
Section 78 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that proceedings may continue and judgments delivered even if only two judges remain on a panel provided the decision is unanimous.
That provision also states that if the two remaining judges are split in their ruling, the proceeding shall be reheard under Section 78(2) of the Act.
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said the presence of a fiercely independent Bar will be the best answer to any attempt to subvert or annihilate independence of the judiciary and rule of law.
“The Bar must rally behind the judiciary as it is constrained from defending itself publicly,” Salim said.
Senior lawyer Alex De Silva has filed two motions—one on judicial appointments and independence of the judiciary, and another on the role of the Bar in defending the judiciary —in advance of the Bar’s 79th annual general meeting on Saturday. - FMT, 13/3/2025
Remove executive’s role in judges’ appointment, says Chief Justice
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat says there must be a meaningful engagement with all stakeholders to move forward.
PUTRAJAYA: The judiciary has proposed that provisions in the Federal Constitution be amended to remove executive involvement in the appointment of judges.
This was revealed by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who said the suggestion was given by the judiciary to the task force probing former attorney-general Tommy Thomas’ book, “My Story: Justice In The Wilderness”.
One of the suggestions was that improvements should be made to the process of appointing judges.
“We suggested that there should be an amendment to the constitution to give effect to our proposal,” she told reporters after officiating a ceremony to open the legal year.
Tengku Maimun said the judiciary was collectively supportive of the task force’s proposal to the government.
“That is our general stand to improve the judiciary or the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). However, there must be meaningful engagement with all stakeholders to move forward,” she said.
Article 122B (1) states that judges and all administrative position holders shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the prime minister, after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
However, Section 27 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 states that the prime minister may request for two additional names for consideration with respect to any vacancy to the offices of the Chief Justice, Court of Appeal President, Chief Judges of Malaya, and Sabah and Sarawak, and on the panels of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal.
Tengku Maimun said any amendment to the 2009 Act would likely first require the Federal Constitution itself to be amended.
“We will not reach the objective of appointing judges without executive involvement, if the current provision (which requires executive consultation) remains,” she added.
She said the prevailing public perception of executive involvement in the appointment of judges must also be removed.
Tengku Maimun said she had also called for the new government to set up an independent judicial academy to cater to the training needs of superior court judges.
Last year the top judge announced that the government approved 25 acres of land in Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, alongside an existing magistrates’ court for the academy.
“In principle, the previous government had approved (the proposal), but when the final decision was communicated to us, they said judges should go to the judicial and legal service officers’ training institute due to a costing issue.
“As a matter of principle, judges should not be going there. Judges are not government officers,” Tengku Maimun said.
She said judges in the past never attended any course at the institute located in Bandar Baru Bangi.
“The person who issued the statement lacked understanding of the law and procedure,” she added.
Death threats
Meanwhile, sharing a personal experience in her role as Chief Justice, Tengku Maimun said she had been on the receiving end of death threats when presiding over cases involving certain personalities.
“In cases involving certain personalities, the support or criticism is extreme. People generally know that I myself have received death threats before.
“Whether those were serious threats or not is another question, but it has reached that level,” she said, according to Bernama.
When it comes to high-profile individuals, she said the comments directed at the judiciary were not constructive but excessive, one-sided and politically-motivated.
“I hope the people out there understand the structure of the country’s legal process before issuing any statements which show their lack of understanding.”
In August last year, the media quoted police as saying they had received reports of threats made against Tengku Maimun on social media and would be taking action against anyone found abusing such platforms to undermine security.
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.
This followed a meeting by the rulers chaired by Negeri Sembilan's Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, held for two days at Istana Negara beginning yesterday.
In its statement, the conference said the JAC in its present composition had weaknesses, adding that its membership was critical to ensure that only those with intergrity are appointed to judicial posts.
Tuanku Muhriz said a more balanced membership was needed so that appointments would not be biased towards any parties.
"To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister.
"Instead it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee," he said.
Tuanku Muhriz also called for JAC's structure to be reevaluated through discussions with the relevant institutions and stakeholders.
"When all this is implemented, I am confident JAC will be able to carry out its responsibilities more effectively, and choose and appoint only those individuals who have a noble character, and are transparent and fair, to become judges in Malaysia."
JAC was set up in 2009 to ensure an unbiased selection of judges for the consideration of the prime minister.
Critics have however questioned the provision allowing the prime minister to appoint the majority of the commission's members, as well as his power to remove them, saying it smacks of political patronage in the judiciary.Malaysia Now, 30/11/2022
Posts
