Latest news with #judicialintegrity
Malay Mail
18-07-2025
- Malay Mail
Fake post on Chief Justice appointment lands Instagram user in MCMC probe
KUALA LUMPUR, July 18 — The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is investigating an individual suspected of uploading fake content relating to the appointment of the Chief Justice on their Instagram. The commission said that the individual's statement was recorded at 2.30pm at the Petaling Jaya district police headquarters and a mobile phone and SIM card were seized to assist in investigations. 'MCMC views the spread of fake content touching the integrity of the country's judicial institution seriously. Misuse of social media for such purposes can affect public confidence and the country's public order. 'Stern action will be taken according to existing legal provisions,' the commission said in a statement today. The case is being investigated under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that stipulates a maximum fine of RM500,000 or two years' jail or both if found guilty. — Bernama
South China Morning Post
14-07-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Malaysia's judicial crisis escalates with leaked memo claims against top judge candidate
Malaysia 's judicial crisis deepened over the weekend after a leaked memo revealed serious allegations against Federal Court Judge Terrirudin Salleh, ahead of a lawyers' march to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim 's office on Monday to protest against alleged executive interference in the judiciary. Anwar has come under mounting pressure over the scandal, with lawmakers from his own party breaking ranks to demand that he 'clear the air', warning that judicial integrity is now 'the biggest issue' facing the country. The document, which comprises minutes from a classified Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting in May, was uploaded to social media on Saturday. It seemingly substantiates earlier claims of misconduct against Terrirudin, a former attorney general and rumoured front runner for the judiciary's top post. Previously reported allegations that the leaked memo corroborated included claims that Terrirudin pressured then-chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to rule in favour of certain parties in an unspecified case and pushed for the reappointment of judges linked to ongoing trials. Terrirudin's former office, the Attorney General's Chambers, has since dismissed the claims as 'speculation'. Teriuddin Salleh is the rumoured front runner for the post of chief justice. Photo: Federal Court of Malaysia Former deputy law minister Ramkarpal Singh said the allegations 'strike at the very core of the integrity' of the judiciary and urged the prime minister to suspend Terrirudin's candidacy for higher office until the matter was investigated.
Malay Mail
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Statement on top judicial appointments and the urgent need for reform — G25
JULY 11 — We, G25, express serious concern over the non-extension of the tenure of service of the former Chief Justice, Tun Tengku Maimun bin Tuan Mat, and the tenure of service of the former President of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim. Whilst we acknowledge that the constitutional six-month extensions are not as of right but at the discretion of the Government, what is disquieting is that the same six-month extensions have been given very recently to four other Federal Court Judges. Why were similar extensions denied to Tun Tengku Maimun and Tan Sri Abang Iskandar when it cannot be denied that both were exemplary top Judges known for their excellence, landmark judgments, and integrity? Make no mistake, G25 is not asking that they be given special treatment. But we just ask: why were they being sidelined? We also express serious concern over the delay in appointing a new Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal, following the retirements of Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat as Chief Justice on 2 July 2025, and of Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim as President of the Court of Appeal on July 3, 2025. While acting appointments have been made to ensure administrative continuity, leaving the apex court without permanent leadership creates an unacceptable vulnerability and sends troubling signals about the state of institutional governance in Malaysia. In addition, given that the retirement dates were clearly known in advance, and, indeed, names of candidates for the posts had been duly submitted to the Prime Minister by the JAC quite some time ago, the lack of timely action is difficult to justify and reflects poorly on the level of preparedness for such an important institutional transition. The continued silence from the Government regarding this has only intensified public speculation about possible political interference. The Palace of Justice, which houses Malaysia's Court of Appeal and Federal Court, is seen in Putrajaya March 18, 2024. — Picture by Choo Choy May. G25 has consistently advocated for judicial independence as a cornerstone of good governance. We believe this independence can only be guaranteed if the appointment and promotion of judges are overseen by a body independent of executive influence. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), introduced in 2009 via the JAC Act, was meant to serve this role. Whilst it did improve public perception of judicial integrity at the time, concerns have persisted over the years. This is in part due to the fact that the Prime Minister has the discretion to appoint five out of the JAC's nine members. This goes against the principle of the independence of the Judiciary. We, in G25, advocate that in order to adhere to the principle of the independence of the Judiciary, the Prime Minister should cease to have any part in the appointments process of superior court judges. Recommendations from the JAC should be submitted directly to Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, and His Majesty shall act on the recommendations of the JAC. As such, urgent reform of the JAC structure is essential. Its members should be appointed independently by an Independent Committee, its composition expanded to reflect a wider range of perspectives, and its deliberations made more transparent, such as by publishing meeting summaries to dispel suspicion over delays or decisions made behind closed doors. These steps will go far to strengthen public trust and judicial impartiality. We, G25, appeal to the Conference of Rulers, as guardian of our Constitution and justice, to call for the immediate reform of the JAC and of the process of appointment of superior court judges. We call on the Government to reform the JAC according to the Conference of Rulers' proposal during their 260th Conference which was held on 30 November 2022 (New Straits Times, 30 November 2022) and implement the recommendation that JAC members should no longer be appointed by the Prime Minister. In upholding the Rukun Negara principles of Supremacy of the Constitution and Rule of Law, it is pivotal to ensure that judicial appointments reflect the highest standards of merit, professionalism, and independence, free from political influence. The judiciary, as one of the three branches of democratic governance, must remain independent from the legislative and executive arms. This independence is essential to protect the rights of the people, and to ensure that the actions of the Cabinet or Parliament do not stray from constitutional boundaries. Alongside structural reform, there must also be unwavering commitment to integrity and accountability within the judiciary itself. Allegations of judicial misconduct, especially those suggesting external interference, must not be dismissed before investigations are conducted. These kinds of allegations show there are serious problems in the system that need to be redressed openly and without delay. G25 supports independent investigations, including through Royal Commissions of Inquiry where appropriate, with full disclosure of findings for the sake of transparency and trust. Malaysia's reputation as a democratic state governed by the Rule of Law depends on the strength and independence of its judiciary. Delays in key judicial appointments, coupled with structural weaknesses, risk damaging our standing in the eyes of the global community. Investors, diplomatic partners, and international human rights observers closely monitor the state of judicial governance in our country as a benchmark for institutional stability and accountability. To maintain confidence in our legal system, Malaysia must demonstrate transparency, consistency, and a commitment to judicial integrity. We, G25, call on the Government to also uphold the core Madani principles that it advocates, particularly, those centred around trust which includes good governance, transparency, and integrity. If the Government is sincere in its pledge to uphold its Madani principles of governance, then this must be clearly demonstrated through action, not just rhetoric. Ensuring a swift and transparent appointment of top judicial positions, alongside meaningful reforms to protect judicial independence and accountability, will serve as a true measure of the Government's commitment to those ideals. The credibility of Malaysia's governance and reform agenda will ultimately be measured by how consistently these principles are earnestly applied, especially in matters as fundamental as the administration of justice. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
News24
05-06-2025
- Business
- News24
Meyiwa judge under fire; AARTO set for 1 October: Today's top 7 stories in 7 minutes
News24 brings you the top 7 stories of the day. News24 brings you the top stories of the day, summarised into neat little packages. Read through quickly or listen to the articles via our customised text-to-speech feature. 'This is South Africa run by blacks': Senzo Meyiwa trial judge slammed for racial remarks - Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng is facing criticism for comments made during the Senzo Meyiwa trial, where he questioned advocate Charles Mnisi's request to be excused for the Comrades Marathon, bringing race into the discussion. - The GOOD party condemned the judge's racially divisive language, while legal experts expressed concern that it undermines judicial integrity, but Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo saw no misconduct. - Mbekezeli Benjamin from Judges Matter expressed disappointment in the conduct of legal practitioners during the trial, but also noted the judge's reference to race in his comments. Supplied/Zimbali Estate Proposed R15.5m Zimbali Beach Club purchase scrapped after wave of resident complaints - The Zimbali Estate Management Association (ZEMA) initially planned to purchase the Zimbali Beach Club for R15.5 million but cancelled the deal due to legal concerns about its authority to acquire immovable property. - Concerned residents challenged the acquisition, citing lack of transparency, conflict of interest, flawed voting procedures, and concerns about noise and security. - ZEMA CEO maintains the cancellation demonstrates sound governance and that the association remains committed to safeguarding the interests of the Zimbali Estate community. Roman Cabanac/Facebook Roman Cabanac sacked as Steenhuisen's chief of staff on his birthday - Roman Cabanac was fired from his position as Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen's chief of staff due to racist remarks made on social media. - Cabanac acknowledged his dismissal in a video, stating he is considering his options and may challenge the termination. - The controversy stemmed from Cabanac's past social media posts, including minimising the Sharpeville massacre and making derisive comments about 'poor Xhosas'. SEE | Midstream house bought with Lotto money meant for old age home, says SIU - The SIU has frozen a R3.7-million property allegedly bought with Lottery funds meant for an old-age home and an agricultural project. - The funds were allegedly channelled through nonprofits and private companies before reaching conveyancing attorneys to purchase the house. - This case follows a pattern seen in other Lottery fraud cases, where grants are misappropriated for personal gain. CatherineFoot-and-mouth: Animal transport crackdown imminent across SA - The government plans to implement national rules on cloven-hoofed livestock movement due to foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. - These new measures will introduce stricter control measures, not a ban, on livestock movement, requiring supervision and adherence to biosecurity. - The decision follows a report of foot-and-mouth disease at Karan Beef's feedlot, with the government citing reckless farmer behavior as a contributing factor. AARTO set for 1 October: What motorists should know about points, spam filters and vehicle finance - The AARTO system, introducing demerit points for traffic offences, is launching with potential consequences for drivers, especially fleet owners, as accumulating 15 points leads to license suspension. - Concerns exist regarding the AARTO system's centralised digital process, potentially compromising drivers' right of appeal and creating issues with notification awareness due to reliance on SMS and email. - The AARTO system raises questions about its impact on professional drivers, fleet owners, and the road freight industry, especially considering existing driver shortages and unique South African driving risks like hijacking. United Rugby Championship boss Martin Anayi.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Progressives Find Religion on the Shadow Docket
Not long ago, progressives blasted the Supreme Court for abusing the "shadow docket" - the issuing of unsigned, late-night rulings without full arguments or explanation. Then, late last month, the court did it again. Only this time, progressives are praising the court for intervening. In an unsigned, late-night order, the justices issued an emergency stay halting the deportation of certain Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act - a 1798 statute the Trump administration had controversially invoked. The case lacked a full factual record. No oral arguments were held. Justice Samuel Alito dissented. And while progressives quickly caricatured his brief opinion as anti-immigrant, the substance of his dissent had little to do with immigration and everything to do with process. His warning was plain: A court that acts "literally in the middle of the night" on untested claims and incomplete records risks its own legitimacy - no matter how noble the outcome may seem. The critique wasnt ideological. It was institutional. What Alito defended was not executive power, but judicial integrity. He objected to the method, not the result. He argued, quite reasonably, that the court has a responsibility to hear both sides, develop a factual record, and deliberate before intervening in politically sensitive, legally complex matters. Skipping those steps, even in service of a seemingly just cause, is a dangerous precedent. That was the argument progressives themselves made during the Trump years. When the Supreme Court issued emergency rulings to reinstate controversial policies or reject COVID-era voting accommodations, liberal scholars and journalists blasted the shadow docket as opaque and undemocratic. Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent in a 2021 emergency ruling, accused the majority of turning the emergency docket into "a place for major decisions with no reasoned explanation." But that concern seems to have evaporated now that the political outcome has flipped. If you believe the shadow docket undermines public trust, that belief shouldnt hinge on who benefits from the ruling. If you believe the court must proceed with deliberation and transparency, that belief cant be optional. Yet with this latest ruling, weve seen just how easily process arguments are cast aside when the outcome is convenient. Alitos dissent flips the usual script. He isnt attacking due process - hes defending it. And not just for migrants or for the executive branch, but for the judiciary itself. If the court wants to preserve its legitimacy, it cant claim the moral high ground while bypassing the procedures that give its rulings weight. This isnt a hypothetical concern. A court that behaves like a political actor, issuing decree-like orders based on vague allegations and one-sided accounts, will soon be treated like one. And when that happens, the institutional authority the court depends on will erode from both sides. None of this is to say the court can never act in an emergency. But there is a difference between urgency and incaution. The courts emergency powers should be used sparingly and with caution, especially when the law is unsettled and the facts are unclear. Its easy to dismiss Alitos dissent as just another conservative objection. But that misses the point. He wasnt warning about immigration. He was warning about the court. Process matters. Even when its inconvenient. Especially when its inconvenient. Justin Evan Smith is a law student, business strategist, and contributor with Young Voices. Follow him on X @thejustinevan.
