Chief justice's retirement: Malaysian Bar fears 'dangerous vacuum' in judiciary
Malaysian Bar president Mohamad Ezri Abdul Wahab said the government's continued silence on whether Tengku Maimun's tenure would be extended or a successor would be named was "indefensible" and risked damaging public confidence in the judiciary.
"As of today, there has been no formal announcement of a successor or whether an extension is to be granted.
"The position of the chief justice is not symbolic — it is central to the integrity, independence and functioning of the entire judicial system.
"Leaving the post in uncertainty so close to the retirement date reflects a failure in institutional responsibility.
"A breakdown in governance risks damaging public confidence in the judiciary and opens the door to speculation and unhealthy conjecture," he said in a statement today.
Ezri said while the Malaysian Bar did not take positions on specific appointments or judicial extensions, it could not remain silent when institutional indecision threatened judicial independence.
"What we are witnessing now is not an issue of lobbying or preference; it is an issue of urgency, transparency and the proper functioning of a constitutional democracy.
"What is unfolding now is unprecedented. With less than 48 hours to go before the sitting chief justice retires, there is still no official word from the relevant authorities.
"This vacuum, at the very apex of the judiciary, is as absurd as it is dangerous," he said, adding that in the absence of clarity, the public would speculate.
The Bar also took note of remarks by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today warning against lobbying for judicial appointments and calling for the judiciary to be protected from politicisation.
Ezri said the Bar fully supported the principle that judicial appointments must remain free from lobbying and external influence, but warned against conflating legitimate institutional concern with political interference.
"Our call for clarity on the impending transition is made in good faith and in line with our duty to uphold institutional continuity and public confidence in the administration of justice.
"At this critical juncture, what is required is clear leadership and timely, decisive action.
"The Malaysian Bar calls on the authorities responsible to immediately announce the course of action — whether it be an extension or an appointment — in accordance with the Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission process.
"There is a meaningful distinction between supporting or objecting to a particular person and calling out a systemic failure that may erode confidence in the rule of law."
Ezri said judicial independence must not only be praised in speeches, but upheld through actions and decisions that inspire public trust.
Tengku Maimun, the first woman to serve as chief justice, is due to retire tomorrow upon turning 66 — the mandatory retirement age for judges under the Constitution.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Impeachment almost impossible if Philippine Supreme Court doesn't revise its verdict, says rep Terry Ridon
MANILA: Impeaching any high-ranking official may be almost impossible if the Supreme Court (SC) does not revise its decision on Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment case, Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon said on Thursday (July 31). Ridon, in an ambush interview at the Batasang Pambansa complex, explained that with the SC decision, an impeachable official can just ask a friend in the House of Representatives to file a weak impeachment case against him or her, and this will automatically kick in the one-year prohibition period on impeachment proceedings. On July 25, SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced that the Articles of Impeachment forwarded by the House to the Senate was deemed unconstitutional by the high tribunal for violating the 1987 Constitution's one-year ban rule. 'I think this sentiment was played out in the last couple of days – the actual objections of lawyers, lawyers' groups, people's organisations and our esteemed luminaries – about the effects of this particular decision, and I will reiterate it today. If the Supreme Court stands on this decision and it does not reconsider the ruling, nobody in the Philippines would be impeached,' Ridon, a lawyer by profession, told reporters. 'Because any high-ranking official — a president, vice president, Supreme Court justice – if they have a friend who is a House member, they will endorse a complaint, ask them to file a complaint against me. Whether or not the House addresses that, the one year ban period starts,' he added. According to Ridon, it is an 'unfortunate situation which we hope that the Supreme Court will reconsider.' On February 5, Duterte was impeached after 215 House lawmakers from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint, which was hinged on allegations of confidential fund misuse within her offices, threats to ranking officials, and other possible violations of the Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment were immediately forwarded to the Senate on the same day, as the 1987 Constitution requires a trial to start forthwith if at least one-third of all House members — or just 102 out of 306 — have signed and endorsed the petition. In February, two petitions seeking to stop the impeachment complaints were filed before the SC. The first was from Mindanao-based lawyers who claimed that the House did not observe the Constitution's rules, which require it to act on filed impeachment complaints within 10 session days. The first impeachment complaint was filed in December 2024 and was only referred to the House committee on rules on February 5. The House, however, asserted in its reply to the SC that all the impeachment complaints were addressed within 10 session days, noting that the term 'session days' should not be mistaken with 'calendar days' or 'working days.' In its explanation, the House presented a table showing when the sessions were held. The day that the first complaint was submitted to House Secretary General Reginald Velasco's office, December 2, was the 26th Session Day of the 19th Congress' Third Regular Session. On the other hand, the three impeachment complaints were forwarded by Velasco to House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez on February 5, and these were brought to the plenary on the same day — which was the 36th Session day of the Third Regular Session. The House believes this means it took exactly 10 session days before the first complaint was transmitted. While the Articles of Impeachment were deemed unconstitutional, SC clarified that it does not absolve the vice president, adding that the next impeachment complaint can be filed against the vice president by February 6, 2026. The House is expected to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC's decision regarding the impeachment. The Senate, on the other hand, is scheduled to tackle the matter on Wednesday (Aug 6). - Philippine Daily Inquirer/ANN
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- New Straits Times
Govt reviews global judiciary appointment systems amid reform push
KUALA LUMPUR: The government is currently conducting a comparative review of the judicial appointments mechanisms in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, and India, alongside Malaysia's mechanism. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, said the study aimed to ensure that judicial appointments in the country are carried out more transparently, independently, and in accordance with the principles of the Federal Constitution. "This study has been conducted in an inclusive manner through joint engagement sessions with the judiciary, the Malaysian Bar Council, Members of Parliament from both the government and opposition blocs, higher education institutions, constitutional experts, civil society organisations, and the public. "This approach aims to ensure that the appointment process is implemented more transparently, independently, and in line with the principles of the Federal Constitution," she said in a written parliamentary reply last night. She added that the government remains committed to upholding the separation of powers and ensuring that key national appointments, including those of superior court judges, are made in accordance with the Federal Constitution and existing laws. This follows the Malaysian Bar's rally for judicial independence on July 14, after claims of judicial interference arising from documents allegedly leaked from Judicial Appointments Commission meeting minutes.
The Star
3 days ago
- The Star
Govt has set up feasibility study for Human Right Tribunal, says Kulasegaran
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has formally set up a feasibility study committee to explore the establishment of a Human Rights Tribunal in Malaysia, with findings expected to be finalised by October this year, said M. Kulasegaran (pic). The Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) stated that the Feasibility Study Committee on the Human Rights Tribunal (JKKTHAM) was established in June, following an initial meeting chaired by himself on Nov 21, 2024, to discuss the proposal. "This effort marks a significant step in institutional reform under the Madani government. "The feasibility committee has been tasked with studying the practicality of setting up a Human Rights Tribunal and is now actively conducting the study," he told the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday (July 30). Kulasegaran mentioned that the committee is chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mah Weng Kwai and includes representatives from the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, Suhakam, the Malaysian Bar Council, academia, legal practitioners, relevant government agencies, and civil society organisations. "As of July 2025, the committee has convened five meetings, with preliminary findings presented by the research team on July 9. "These covered the conceptual and theoretical framework, analysis of Malaysia's existing human rights mechanisms, international comparative practices, and a proposed model for Malaysia's own tribunal," he said. A focus group discussion (FGD) with stakeholders was also held on July 17 in Kuala Lumpur, with more FGDs planned across the country, including in Sabah and Sarawak, he added. Kulasegaran emphasised the government's commitment to ensure that the tribunal, if established, complies with the Federal Constitution, particularly Article 3, which upholds Islam as the religion of the Federation. "To this end, we have included representatives from the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia and the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) in the committee, to ensure that any proposal is not in conflict with the Constitution," he said. He noted that the tribunal may serve as an alternative and accessible justice mechanism for victims of human rights violations, potentially hearing cases such as those involving Teoh Beng Hock, Muhammad Adib, and baby Zara, though the specific framework and jurisdiction are still under discussion. Kulasegaran also acknowledged concerns that Suhakam's recommendations have often been non-binding, saying this issue is being carefully examined. "It is important that Suhakam's recommendations are not ignored but implemented meaningfully. "This is being considered as part of the feasibility and legal review being conducted by the committee," he said.
