PRIME Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim cannot be considered a mere “conduit” who receives recommendations from any party regarding appointments in the judiciary - including the posts of Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal
The prime minister has a responsibility under the Federal Constitution to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for the purpose of protecting the independence, credibility and integrity of the judiciary, said the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC).
Considering this, it said the claim that there was a delay in the appointment process and failure to take action on previous nominations must be viewed from the perspective of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has approved the appointment of several High Court and Court of Appeal judges last month but the appointments still need to go through several formalities.
“Therefore, such appointments should be made in an orderly and systematic manner,” it said in a statement.
The AGC's statement referred to a media statement by Pandan Member of Parliament, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, along with several other PKR MPs who urged the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) and a Parliamentary Select Committee on appointments in the judiciary, including the highest positions in the institution.
According to the statement, the AGC recognises the importance of public confidence in the judicial selection process and affirms the principle of independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
The appointment of superior court judges is provided for under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution which states that judges shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister, after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
The Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 [Act 695] is a law that details the process for selecting prospective judges, but the power to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong lies exclusively with the prime minister.
The AGC added that the time frame and process for finalising appointments, especially for positions such as the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, are subject to the procedures set out under the Federal Constitution and must take into account all aspects, including the need for consultation and the exercise of discretionary powers in accordance with the existing constitutional framework.
In relation to the statement that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting was called without sufficient notice pursuant to section 13(2) of Act 695, it should be stated that the JAC can regulate its own procedures.
“When there is an urgent situation, usually the authorities can continue the meeting with short notice with the consent of all members.
“Procedural matters should not affect the validity of the JAC’s deliberations unless there is a clear element of mala fide or prejudice,” the AGC explained.
The AGC also described the accusation of a Federal Court judge being involved in influencing court decisions and the reassignment of judges as a serious allegation.
However, deliberations in JAC meetings are confidential and protected by law.
“The allegation cannot be equated with proven misconduct or affecting judicial independence and it remains a premature and purely speculative allegation,” it said.
The AGC also described the comparison with the VK Lingam case in 2007 as unwarranted at this stage.
This is because the case involved clear evidence of interference in the process of appointing judges until the Commission of Inquiry was established at that time.
“The situation is different from the current scenario where the accusations/allegations are only based on irregularities in the procedural aspects and "An assumption that is not supported by solid evidence," the statement read.
It said the AGC will always advise the government in matters on the administration of justice if there is substantiated evidence.
In the absence of such evidence, all parties authorized by law must be given space to discharge their responsibilities without any pressure, speculation or public campaigning.
“The current situation must be monitored and it is hoped that no party will act hastily. A discrepancy in time periods or procedures in the matter of appointments does not necessarily constitute a constitutional crisis.
"The appointment system must be implemented through legal procedures, respecting the role of institutions and the provisions of the Federal Constitution,” it said.
All parties must always be responsible for upholding the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers, and this responsibility can best be implemented by strengthening institutional maturity and not by just making baseless speculations, it added. - July 8, 2025
