n a candid reflection on Malaysia’s recent judicial appointment snag, retired Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat has shed light on both the routine nature of the delay and the underlying need for greater clarity in the process. Speaking publicly for the first time since her retirement on July 2, 2025, she assured that no single individual is to blame for the postponement. Rather, she explained, the delay unfolded within the expected framework involving Malaysia’s Malay rulers.
Yet, even routine procedures can cast shadows when public trust is at stake. Tengku Maimun acknowledged growing concerns that include the prime minister’s role in the process, which, she said, could give rise to “perceptions” of political interference—even if unintended.
During a forum in Kuala Lumpur on August 19, 2025, the former chief justice underlined that the Constitution grants the prime minister latitude to act independently of Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) suggestions. “Whether the names selected by the JAC are accepted by the prime minister under the Federal Constitution is a separate issue,” she remarked.
Echoing earlier proposals, Tengku Maimun is advocating for a constitutional overhaul—one that would embed the JAC’s procedures into the Constitution and reduce the prime minister’s discretionary power in appointing senior judges. She didn’t mince words about the perception problem: with the prime minister selecting four of the nine JAC members, there’s a lingering sense that those appointments could influence the commission’s independence.
Her remarks follow a momentous speech she delivered earlier this year at the Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta, where she argued that removing the prime minister from the appointment equation would enhance the judiciary’s credibility and independence.
Notably, Tengku Maimun’s retirement—effective July 2—came as she reached the mandatory retirement age of 66, and her role was not extended, despite an earlier six-month extension being customary. Some observers tied her departure to her outspoken views on judicial governance, particularly her Malta speech, though her close associates maintain she simply did not wish to continue in the position.
Even still, she expressed pride in her legacy, asserting that “the judiciary has reclaimed its independence” since the troubled days of the 1988 constitutional crisis—a charged era when judges were unceremoniously removed under executive pressure.
Source: CNA
