A Constitutional Blunder Or A Fictional Blunder

---

 There is no blunder of any sort in extending the tenure of the chief justice and other senior judicial posts.


From Surendra Ananth
In an FMT article “CJ’s tenure extension: a constitutional blunder”, dated May 28, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer calls into question the constitutionality of extending the tenure of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah & Sarawak (referred to as office bearers here) for six months after they reach the age of 66.
Hamid questions the previous extensions of these office bearers and terms them as possible “constitutional blunders”.
In short, he takes this view because Article 125(1), Federal Constitution (on the 6-month extension) only mentions Federal Court judges and does not expressly mention the above office bearers.
With the utmost of respect to Hamid, there is no blunder of any sort.
The office bearers are judges of the Federal Court. One must be a Federal Court judge to be appointed as an office bearer (Article 122(1), Federal Constitution).A Federal Court judge must retire at the age of 66 unless he is extended for a period of no longer than six months by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Article 125(1), Federal Constitution).A Federal Court judge serving the extension period after the age of 66 is a Federal Court judge like any other Federal Court judge.A Federal Court judge serving the extension period after the age of 66 can therefore be an office bearer.There is no need for Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution to expressly refer to these office bearers. This is because they are Federal Court judges.
Using Hamid’s logic, then:
These office bearers can continue to be office bearers until death, without a retirement age. Article 125(1), which provides for the retirement age, does not expressly mention the office bearers.Office bearers ought not be paid remuneration under federal law as provided under Article 125(6) because the provision does not expressly mention the office bearers.This simply cannot be the case. It is understood that a reference to a Federal Court judge would include the office bearers for the simple reason that they are Federal Court judges.
Sometimes all it takes is a bit of logic and common sense. - FMT
Surendra Ananth is an advocate and solicitor practising in Peninsular Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---