Write an article about JAC debate should revolve around constitutionality, not character .Organize the content with appropriate headings and subheadings (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6), Retain any existing tags from
From Apandi Ali
Yesterday, former Federal Court judge Suriyadi Halim Omar added his voice to the growing list of elite defenders of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat following her speech in Malta. His words were kind, his tone reassuring, and his praise for her integrity sincere.
But with due respect, we must ask: when did this debate become about character rather than the constitution?
This is not a popularity contest. It is not a referendum on whether the chief justice is likable, courageous, or groundbreaking. It is a debate about the limits of judicial power, the role of the prime minister in judicial appointments, and the danger of insulating judges from democratic oversight.
A shift from law to sentiment
Suriyadi describes those who question Tengku Maimun’s position as “echoes from the past”. He suggests that they do not represent the voice of the people. But ironically, it is the very people – the electorate – whose will is reflected through the prime minister, the only elected figure in the judicial appointment process.
It is easy to praise the judiciary in poetic terms. To call judges “beacons of hope”. But romanticising institutions does not remove the need for accountability. History has shown us that power without checks corrupts – even in robes.
What the defenders omit
The current conversation glosses over several inconvenient truths:
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which Tengku Maimun now champions, was allegedly bypassed during her own appointment – a fact publicly acknowledged by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas.
The Bar Council, now loudly defending her, remained silent at the time, despite its usual insistence on process and transparency.
When former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad questioned the legality and optics of the appointment, no one addressed his points.
If procedure mattered now, why didn’t it matter then?
From principle to publicity?
But even more troubling is the likelihood that the chief justice herself disclosed a personal message from a retired judge – Suriyadi – to the media.
The message, meant to be private, was evidently made public to signal that she has support from within the legal fraternity. If true, this is uncharacteristic conduct for the head of the judiciary, whose dignity should rest on institutional strength, not personal validation.
It is not only ethically questionable – it signals a worrying shift from judicial restraint to narrative management.
Character doesn’t equal constitutionality
Let us be clear: one can admire the personal ethics of judges and still question the system that surrounds them. This is not about smearing reputations. It is about preserving constitutional balance.
Supporters of the chief justice often conflate judicial independence with judicial supremacy – as if shielding the judiciary from every other branch is the only path to justice. But no institution, however noble, should be left to govern itself unchecked.
Even in India – where the Basic Structure Doctrine was born – jurists are now cautioning against the rise of an unaccountable bench. We would be wise to take note.
Let principle guide us
We do not need poetic tributes. We need constitutional fidelity.
The prime minister’s role in judicial appointments, as enshrined in Article 122B, was not written by accident. It exists to reflect democratic legitimacy in an otherwise cloistered appointment process.
Calls to remove this role should be debated on legal grounds, not framed as an attack on the dignity of a sitting judge.
At this moment, the question is simple: do we want judges chosen through a process that balances independence with public legitimacy – or one that consolidates power among an unelected few?
If the latter, then let us say so plainly. But let us not pretend that warm words and flattering praise are substitutes for constitutional principle.
Apandi Ali is a former Federal Court judge and former attorney-general.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect that of FMT.
and integrate them seamlessly into the new content without adding new tags. Include conclusion section and FAQs section at the end. do not include the title. it must return only article i dont want any extra information or introductory text with article e.g: ” Here is rewritten article:” or “Here is the rewritten content:”