A VERY good question has posed in a joint statement by the eight past presidents of the Bar Council.
They have asked why there has been a non-extension for six months under Article 125 for three Federal Court judges, particularly the Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, and two other very senior federal court judges all of whom are retiring very soon.
First, I agree with the part of the statement which says that they are the cream de la cream of judges. I think many in the profession will agree they were among of the best for the last few years.
They were the best, but this also leads to a dilemma.
Now I would suggest if there was an extension, there would be speculation in the minds of public why they have been extended. At the same time, now they are not being extended, there is negative speculation over it.
What really strikes me is the part of the statement saying there is a perception that this is retribution for the having decided cases in a particular way, not in line with the wishes of the powers that be.
Now, there is a question mark here.
What are those cases that have been decided not in line with the powers that be? It must be very clear with proof and evidence.
Of course, there is freedom of speech and opinion which is good, but another argument could be made that their statement was itself an interference in the judicial appointment process.
The statement also says it gives a chilling message to the other judges to toe the line. It also cites the belief that certain political interests must be served in return for patronage or support.
I find this an unbelievable and unacceptable claim.
The independence of the judiciary from the parliament and executive is paramount. And we can't erode it.
But without proof, it is unacceptable to say there is such a perception.
We most certainly should not express or repeat wild and damaging theories about the appointment process.
Ultimately Article 125 gives the Yang-di-Pertuan-Agong the power to extend judicial appointments or not.
It is an enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
So let it be.
By Baldip Singh Santokh Singh
Advocate & Solicitor
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Vibes
