Protecting Judicial Independence: A Call for Reform

The Need for Urgent Reform

A former deputy law and institutional reform minister has expressed concerns that the lack of reforms to the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (JAC Act 2009) could lead to a repeat of the 1988 judicial crisis, which saw the government sack former Lord President Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges. Ramkarpal Singh, the Bukit Gelugor MP, warned that the perception of executive interference in judicial appointments remains a serious concern.

Ramkarpal emphasized the need to overhaul the JAC appointments process to ensure that the perception of executive influence in appointing judges is eliminated. He stated that the prime minister’s power to reject recommended judges must be removed to prevent any perception of executive interference. “The JAC appointments process needs urgent reform to ensure that the perception of executive influence in appointing judges is eliminated,” he told FMT.

The 1988 Judicial Crisis: A Cautionary Tale

The 1988 judicial crisis was a turning point in Malaysian history, when the government’s interference in the judiciary led to a constitutional crisis. The crisis was sparked by the government’s decision to sack Lord President Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges, which was seen as a blatant attempt to undermine the judiciary’s independence.

Ramkarpal warned that failure to learn from the 1988 crisis could lead to a repeat of the same mistakes. He emphasized that the public’s confidence in the judiciary is crucial, and that any perceived executive interference could undermine that confidence.

Improvements in the Judiciary

While acknowledging improvements in the judiciary, including high-profile convictions such as those in the 1MDB scandal, and the country’s rise in the Rule of Law Index, from 78th place in 2016 to 55th in 2022, Ramkarpal stressed that the perception of executive interference in judicial appointments remains a concern.

Questions on Judicial Appointments

Ramkarpal also questioned the appointment of former attorneys-general as judges, asking if such appointments were appropriate. He emphasized that the JAC Act 2009 allows the prime minister to reject judicial candidates recommended by the JAC and request alternative names, which raises fears of political interference.

Chief Justice’s Warning

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat recently touched on judicial independence in her Opening of the Legal Year 2025 speech. She warned against executive influence in judicial appointments, recalling the damaging effects of the 1988 judicial crisis and the VK Lingam scandal, where political connections allegedly influenced judicial promotions.

She emphasized that the public could not be expected to have confidence in the judiciary if they perceived that judges were appointed based on political interests. Her warning was echoed by Ramkarpal, who stressed that the need for reform is urgent.

Conclusion

The concerns raised by Ramkarpal and Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat highlight the importance of protecting judicial independence in Malaysia. The government must take concrete steps to ensure that the appointment of judges is free from executive interference and political influence. The public’s confidence in the judiciary is crucial, and any perceived executive interference could undermine that confidence.

FAQs

Q: What is the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009?
A: The JAC Act 2009 is a law that governs the appointment of judges in Malaysia.

Q: What is the concern about executive interference in judicial appointments?
A: The concern is that the prime minister’s power to reject recommended judges may lead to political interference in the appointment of judges.

Q: What is the impact of perceived executive interference on public confidence in the judiciary?
A: The perceived executive interference could undermine public confidence in the judiciary, as it may be seen as political rather than judicial appointments.

Q: What are the implications of not addressing these concerns?
A: Failure to address these concerns could lead to a repeat of the 1988 judicial crisis, which would have serious implications for the country’s democracy and the rule of law.