OUR Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s speech on April 8 at the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta has attracted a variety of comments – some very measured and moderate, and some extremely unfair and ill-informed.
Tengku Maimun was invited to speak on “Judicial Independence and Parliamentary Sovereignty”. By its very nature, the topic was controversial because it required her to enlighten the audience that in Malaysia, Parliament is NOT supreme. Instead, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The judiciary has been entrusted with the task of preserving and protecting the Constitution and the citizens against executive and legislative overreach, if that ever occurs.
The CJ correctly pointed out that some tensions between Parliament and the executive on one side and the judiciary on the other are inevitable in our (as well as other) constitutional systems. She gave a brief history of how judicial independence has worked in Malaysia over the decades; how it suffered a retreat in the 80s; and how it has been proudly revived in the last decade.
She also reviewed some emerging views on how constitutional supremacy and judicial independence can be strengthened. One proposal propounded by the Bar Council and many scholars, and noted favourably by the CJ, is to amend the law to make judicial appointments free of political control by the PM.
This is not revolutionary. Many legal systems around the world have adopted this reform. It is noteworthy that even if the PM’s power is transferred to the Judicial Appointment’s Commission, the scrutiny by the Conference of Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B shall remain in place.
Among those who made measured and moderate comments on her speech were Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, who assured the public that the government is committed to institutional reforms and takes note of all views and voices.
On the contrary, a regrettable and ill-advised response came from former Law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who, on April 13, insinuated that the CJ’s Malta speech has shamed the country by alleging that the prime minister has interfered with judicial decisions.
This is a serious misinterpretation of the CJ’s speech. In paras 16-17, she was talking of “the time before 1988” and the “harrowing events of the 1988 (Tun Salleh Abas) crisis” when the then PM was unhappy with many judicial decisions, and judges were intimidated, some suspended and sacked. The Constitution was amended in Article 121(1) to emasculate the judiciary.
Nazri described the CJ as a “penjawat awam” (public servant) and recommended that the Cabinet take serious action to investigate her. The learned Datuk should be informed that under Article 132(3)(c), superior court judges are not part of the public service.
For disciplinary action against a superior court judge, the exceptional provisions of Article 125 are attracted. The last time this drastic provision was invoked was for the removal of Salleh and brother judges.
Malaysia was shamed and rebuked internationally. A judicial winter descended on our beloved land, and it took decades for the winter to thaw.
Surely such a tragic repeat is not what Nazri is recommending against a highly respected, trail-blazer judge.
His outburst against Tengku Maimun is based on some serious misconceptions of the theories of constitutional law and good governance. Unless he was misquoted, he seemed to assert that judges should not rely on unofficial proposals for law reforms.
This is not correct. Scholarly works are often the heart and soul of a judicial decision.
Nazri asserted that it is not the province of judges to propose law reforms. To him, that is a violation of separation of powers. In fact, everywhere in the world judges, in their written judgments, alert Parliament to the flaws in the laws. Separation of powers does not mandate a water-tight compartmentalisation but a check and balance. A non-binding judicial proposal to the legislature is not a trespass on the legislature but an indication of research and reflection.
In summation, Tengku Maimun’s Malta speech was a short reflection of the sad decline of constitutionalism in Malaysia in the ‘80s and its proud re-emergence in the last decade. She deserves praise, not condemnation, for restoring constitutional law to the pedestal on which it was placed when Malaya began its tryst with destiny.
Her proposal for reform of the Judicial Appointments Commission is neither new nor unusual. It is noteworthy that the Conference of Rulers on Nov 30, 2022 also proposed the removal of the prime minister’s power to appoint four representatives to the nine-member JAC.
PROF EMERITUS DATUK DR SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
Universiti Malaya
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
