Latest news with #DanielAnnamalai
Malay Mail
12 hours ago
- Politics
- 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
12 hours ago
- Politics
- 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.
Malay Mail
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Lawyer cancels bid to temporarily pause JAC for judges' appointments, to send constitutional questions to Federal Court
KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — Lawyer Datuk Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim today withdrew his bid to have the High Court temporarily pause the functions of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and to temporarily let the prime minister skip the JAC when selecting judges to be appointed. The High Court was initially scheduled today to hear Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's application for a stay. In the stay application, he wanted the High Court to order a temporary pause on all recommendations for and appointments of judges at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court if these appointments are based on the mechanisms under the JAC Act 2009. The stay application had also asked the High Court to order that the prime minister still be allowed to give advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on appointments of judges without having to be bound by the JAC's recommendations, during the period that the JAC's processes are temporarily paused. His lawyer Daniel Annamalai this morning informed the High Court that his client would be withdrawing this application. High Court judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh then struck out the stay application. When met outside the court, Daniel told reporters that his client had withdrawn the stay application as they were planning to file an application to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court. 'That is the reason why we are withdrawing the stay, to give way for this application,' he said. The High Court is still scheduled on July 16 to hear Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan's main lawsuit which seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009. The lawyer had on April 8 filed the lawsuit against the Malaysian government and the JAC. He is currently seeking eight specific court orders, including to declare the JAC Act 2009 unconstitutional, and to declare the JAC as lacking legal authority to perform its functions. In the lawsuit, he also wants the court to order the prime minister to follow the constitutional process for the appointing of judges without 'interference' by the JAC. Currently, the JAC's role is to recommend candidates to be appointed as judges, and the prime minister — after accepting recommendations — would then give advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for the appointment of judges. PPMM holds watching brief, Bersih joins as amicus curiae Lawyer Shahrulazwad Ismail also represented Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan today. Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly who is also deputy head of the Attorney General's Chambers' Civil Division III, and federal counsel Safiyyah Omar, appeared for the Malaysian government and the JAC. Former Malaysian Bar presidents Christopher Leong and Karen Cheah, Malaysian Bar vice-president Anand Raj and lawyer New Sin Yew appeared today for the Malaysian Bar, which is an intervener or has previously been made a party to the case. Hanir and Leong today both said they were not asking for costs over the stay application that has been withdrawn, and the High Court made no order for costs. Malaysia Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM) president and lawyer Muhamad Hisham Marzuki, lawyers Muhammad Hariz Md Yusoff and Mohd Wafiyuddin Al-Awal Musa appeared today for PPMM which was seeking to hold a watching brief as the case involves public interest matters. Lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, who is also Bukit Gelugor MP and a former deputy law minister, applied today for his client Bersih to be made an amicus curiae or friend of the court to assist the High Court. Ramkarpal said polls reform group Bersih had spearheaded various initiatives on constitutional reforms and human rights issues over the years. The High Court then allowed PPMM to hold a watching brief, and also allowed Bersih to be an amicus curiae.
Free Malaysia Today
08-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Indian national charged with CBT granted RM50,000 bail
The Kuala Lumpur sessions court previously denied bail to Rajinder Singh on the grounds that he is a foreign national. (Reuters pic) PETALING JAYA : An Indian national company director facing a charge of criminal breach of trust (CBT) was granted bail of RM50,000 today with two local sureties by the Kuala Lumpur High Court. Bernama reported that Justice K Muniandy granted the application after hearing a bail review submitted by lawyer Daniel Annamalai, who represented Rajinder Singh, 57, following the sessions court's earlier decision to deny bail. 'The court allows the applicant to be released on bail of RM50,000 with two Malaysian sureties, with the additional condition that his passport be surrendered to the court,' he ruled. Earlier, deputy public prosecutor Izalina Abdullah informed the court that the prosecution had proposed bail of RM70,000 at the sessions court, but it was ultimately subject to the discretion of the presiding judge. 'Should this court allow the applicant to be released on bail, we propose the same amount of RM70,000 with two Malaysian sureties and the additional condition that the applicant surrender his passport to the court,' she said. Daniel also submitted that the sessions court had denied bail on the grounds that his client is a foreign national. However, he informed the High Court that Rajinder had been residing in Malaysia for eight years for employment purposes and holds valid travel documents. 'The proposed sum of RM70,000 is excessive for my client. We respectfully request that bail be set at RM40,000 should this honourable court be minded to grant bail,' he said. On May 5, Rajinder pleaded not guilty in the sessions court to a CBT charge involving RM141,486 belonging to Vantage Trading Partners, entrusted to him as an authorised signatory of the company. He allegedly committed the offence at the company's premises at Ilham Tower, Jalan Binjai, on Oct 13, 2021, and Nov 26, 2021. Rajinder was charged under Section 409 of the Penal Code, which provides two to 20 years' imprisonment, caning and a possible fine upon conviction. The accused also claimed trial to an alternative charge of misusing the same funds without the consent or ratification of a general meeting, at the same location and on the same dates, under Section 218(1)(a) of the Companies Act 2016, which provides a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, a fine of up to RM3 million, or both.
