Safeguarding Judicial Independence – the work continues

TWO weeks ago, Malaysia’s legal community reached a tipping point when lawyers, led by the Malaysian Bar Council, embarked on a 2.6km “Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence.” Clad in black and armed with a 65-page memorandum, they pressed the Prime Minister’s Office to curb executive overreach in judicial appointments.

At the heart of their grievances was the abrupt decision to deny six-month tenure extensions to three of the judiciary’s most senior figures – former Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, and Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan – as each approached the constitutionally mandated retirement age of 66.

Law Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said publicly acknowledged on July 15 that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 is long overdue for reform. In announcing a special parliamentary review committee, Azalina detailed that the JAC’s role—"to screen, assess and recommend" judicial candidates—has been hamstrung by its non-binding status. Under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, the Prime Minister retains final veto power, advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on appointments.

Azalina conceded this arrangement risks the perception of political patronage overriding professional qualifications. She proposed the expert panel, drawing on constitutional scholars, senior practitioners from the Bar Council, and members of the Dewan Rakyat, to benchmark Malaysia’s system against global peers, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and India.

The minister also invited the Malaysian Bar to collaborate on a comparative study, aiming to craft amendment proposals that enshrine greater transparency, set objective scoring criteria, and limit unilateral executive discretion. The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has committed to reforming the judicial appointment process.

The issue peaked when, prior to the meeting of the Council of Rulers or Majlis Raja-Raja, to deliberate on the appointments in line with settled constitutional conventions. Finally, in a midnight communiqué on July 18, the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court announced that Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh would be appointed as Malaysia’s 17th Chief Justice, effective July 28, 2025. Born November 13, 1962, in Kuala Terengganu, Wan Ahmad Farid’s rise from a former Umno division leader and deputy home minister (2008–2009) to judicial commissioner in 2015, High Court judge in 2019, and Court of Appeal judge in November 2024, has been steady but also faster than others. However, some perspective is also essential.

Judges automatically retire at 66. Many are appointed in their early to mid-50s after they have acquired the requisite experience as lawyers. Hence, judicial promotions must also be examined in this context.

Justice Wan Ahmad Farid’s nine-year judicial tenure includes high-stakes rulings, from presiding over the Teoh Beng Hock family’s prolonged quest for judicial review to ordering expedited MACC investigations into the assets of former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin. Most notably, in June 2022, he recused himself from hearing former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s final appeal to admit UK King’s Counsel Jonathan Laidlaw—citing public perception concerns and his past political role—which the Malaysian Bar hailed as a landmark affirmation of judicial independence.

At 62, Justice Wan Ahmad Farid will serve as Chief Justice for just over three years—retiring upon turning 66 on November 13, 2028. In tandem, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, born June 27, 1962, was promoted to President of the Court of Appeal, serving until June 27, 2028, and Justice Datuk Azizah Nawawi, who turns 63 this year, assumed her post as Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, retiring by her 66th birthday in 2028.

While all the appointments have been roundly welcomed, without proper succession planning it can lead to the current situation when all three judges retire within months of one another in 2028.

Anwar has also acted fast to replenish the judiciary’s ranks. He announced that eight High Court judges would be elevated to the Court of Appeal, closing in on the bench’s sanctioned strength of 32. Concurrently, 14 new High Court judges will be appointed.

These inductions come amid a chronic vacancy crisis: as of this date, a number of High Courts in Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam do not have judges, and in some cases, current judges who are overburdened are fixing trials as far ahead as 2030. The Bar Council has also raised the alarm when in a statement issued on 18 July, 202,5 it cautioned that the increasing backlog disrupts the administrative efficiency that is as vital as judicial independence.

While these moves bolster bench strength, they also reignite questions about the durability of reforms championed by former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi. Tun Zaki’s tenure introduced e-filing, court performance dashboards, and mandatory continuing judicial education—measures credited with reducing case clearance times by 30% and slashing backlog in the appellate courts.

Yet critics warn that without sustained focus on lower-court staffing and resource allocation, digital platforms alone cannot offset human capacity constraints. Legal scholar Professor Kanesan of Universiti Malaya lamented that “the wheels of justice cannot turn on empty benches,” and emphasised the need to ensure that the judiciary is adequately funded.

Beyond institutional mechanics, the human dimension of justice resonates deeply. Judges are public servants, but they are also human. As a practising lawyer, I have witnessed firsthand the fatigue and stress of our judges. It is simply not fair to them.

While we expect timely and impartial justice,we must also ensure judges have the tools to do their job. In that sense, the move to make Parliament financially independent of the Executive must follow with making the Judiciary financially independent of the Executive as well. This will ensure proper resource allocation and better funding for our courts to function optimally. This is another aspect of judicial independence that is often missed in discourse.

The Bar Council, led by President Mohamad Ezri Abdul Wahab, has welcomed the fresh leadership but urged vigilance. In their July 18 statement, the Bar praised Wan Ahmad Farid’s Laidlaw recusal as evidence of “profound understanding of judicial independence,” yet stressed that remaining vacancies at the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court “pose a real threat to timely justice.”

The Bar called for a transparent timeline for filling these vacancies, public disclosure of candidates’ qualification matrices, and consideration of weekend sittings to chip away at case queues—in line with innovations piloted in Singapore’s State Courts.

As Justice Wan Ahmad Farid readies to don the highest judicial robes, he inherits both a mandate for independence and a backlog crisis demanding practical remedies. Success will hinge not only on insulating the bench from political pressures but also on ensuring adequate human resources, modernised infrastructure, and process innovations—such as digital triaging, case-management algorithms, and periodic public reporting on clearance rates.

Only by marrying constitutional probity with operational excellence can Malaysia’s judiciary affirm its dual promise: a fearless guardian of rights and an efficient dispenser of justice. We trust in the wisdom of the Judiciary to deliver on this.