Bersih lawyers join judicial appointments law challenge
Bersih noted the importance of the judicial review challenging the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009, as the case aligns with the NGO's objectives.
It thanked Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Amarjeet Singh today for allowing Bersih lawyers Ramkarpal Singh and Kuhan Manokaran to serve as "amicus curiae" (impartial observing lawyer with leave to argue).
"Through this space, Bersih will...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Malaysian Bar seeks clarification on senior judge misconduct claim
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Bar has expressed grave concern over a media report alleging that a senior judge was questioned by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) over possible interference in judicial affairs. Its president, Mohamad Ezri Abdul Wahab, said that if the report is accurate, it raises serious concerns about the integrity and independence of the judiciary, which must remain free from any form of influence or manipulation. "Allegations of judicial interference go beyond the scope of a mere disciplinary matter. They strike at the heart of public confidence in the administration of justice. "This issue is not only about propriety but also about the structural integrity and independence of our judiciary," he said in a statement today. He said the Bar would apply for the release of the minutes from the JAC meeting where the judge was allegedly questioned. "This is necessary to establish the facts, preserve institutional integrity, and ensure that any corrective action needed is taken without compromising legal principles. "Judicial independence is non-negotiable. It is a constitutional guarantee and a pillar of our democratic framework," he said, adding that if the report is inaccurate, a prompt clarification is equally important to prevent unjust harm to the judiciary's reputation. The Malaysian Bar also called on all institutions involved to handle the matter with the seriousness it warrants. "We reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and the protection of judicial independence, without fear or favour," he said. Earlier, a group representing civil society and legal figures called for a Federal Court judge, who is at the centre of serious misconduct allegations, to recuse himself from hearing any appeals or applications until a police investigation is completed. The Sekretariat Pertahan Sistem Kehakiman said the judge should step aside in view of the claims, which cast doubt on his impartiality and risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary. The group issued its statement following the circulation of a police report alleging that the judge had tried to influence the Chief Justice to rule in favour of a particular party. It was further claimed that the judge had requested the transfer of a High Court judge who had presided over a case and disagreed with his views. The judge has also been named in a leave application to initiate committal proceedings and has been reported to the authorities for possible offences under Sections 204 and 209 of the Penal Code. The allegations are linked to the case commonly referred to as the Najib Razak Addendum Decree. The group said police must be allowed to investigate without interference from any party.
Malay Mail
5 hours ago
- Malay Mail
In challenge against Malaysia's judge appointment process, lawyer seeks Federal Court ruling on 16 constitutional questions
KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — A lawyer is now seeking the High Court's nod for him to bring 16 questions on constitutional law to the Federal Court, as part of his court bid to challenge the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and its role in recommending candidates to be appointed as judges in Malaysia. Lawyer Datuk Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim filed his application at the High Court this afternoon, asking the High Court to order that the 16 questions be referred to the Federal Court to be decided there. He also wants the High Court to stay his main lawsuit until the Federal Court decides on the 16 constitutional questions. When contacted by Malay Mail, lawyer Daniel Annamalai confirmed that his client Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan had filed the application to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court. At the time of writing, the High Court is still scheduled to hear on July 16 Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's main lawsuit, where he is seeking to invalidate both the JAC and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act 2009). In his main lawsuit, he also wants the court to order the prime minister to follow the constitutional process for the appointment of judges without what he described as 'interference' by the JAC. Currently, the JAC filters and selects suitable candidates before recommending them to the prime minister. The prime minister can either accept the JAC's recommendations or ask the JAC to give alternative names. Civil society has noted that the prime minister is not required to say why he rejected the JAC's recommendations, and there are also no limits to the number of times he can reject the recommended names. Under the Federal Constitution's Article 122B, the prime minister then gives advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who then appoints the top four judges (including the Chief Justice) and judges (at the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court). What do the 16 constitutional questions cover? The 16 constitutional questions mainly cover areas such as whether the JAC Act 2009 is unconstitutional. The questions also cover issues such as whether the prime minister's role in the process of appointment of judges had been reduced or become meaningless because of the JAC. The 16 questions include: whether the JAC Act 2009 is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution's Article 122B; whether appointments of judges made according to the JAC Act can be challenged as invalid, if the JAC Act is found to be unconstitutional; whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's role and the prime minister's role under Article 122B(1) are unconstitutionally diminished by JAC's recommendations; whether the prime minister's constitutional role in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is made 'redundant or meaningless' by the JAC's statutory mechanisms; and whether the appointment of judges upon an 'unelected' JAC's recommendation infringes the Federal Constitution's Article 4(1), 8(1) and 122B. In an affidavit filed today in court to support his application on the 16 constitutional questions, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan argued that these questions are 'not academic or hypothetical'. He claimed the questions directly affect the validity of all appointments of judges made in Malaysia since 2009. He argued that Article 122B gives the prime minister 'absolute discretion' to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointment of judges. He also said the Federal Court as the Federal Constitution's guardian should decide on the 16 constitutional questions — which include whether the JAC Act is constitutional and consistent with Article 122B.
Free Malaysia Today
5 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Lawyer drops bid to suspend JAC's activities
Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim now intends to pose his legal question to the Federal Court. KUALA LUMPUR : Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim has withdrawn his application to bar the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) from recommending judicial appointments and filling top administrative posts in the judiciary. Justice Amarjeet Singh, who had been scheduled to hear oral submissions today, was informed by counsel Daniel Annamalai that his client had instructed him to withdraw the stay application. The judge then struck out the application with no order as to costs. Daniel told reporters later that Syed Amir had declined to proceed with the stay application as he is planning to apply for constitutional questions to be referred to the Federal Court for determination. In his main suit filed in early April, Syed Amir contended that the powers conferred on the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution. He is seeking a mandamus order compelling the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the constitution. Syed Amir claims that the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which states that the written constitution is the supreme law of the land. Under the JAC Act, the commission proposes the nomination of judges to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. It also recommends nominees for the posts of chief justice, the Court of Appeal president, the chief judge of Malaya, and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak as and when they fall vacant. Syed Amir's application was made under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to persuade Amarjeet to refer the legal question posed to the apex court. Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government and JAC, while lawyers Christopher Leong and Karen Cheah represented the Bar Council, which had filed their written submissions. Amarjeet is scheduled to hear the main suit on July 16.
