Why Govt S Stance On Judicial Extensions Upholds Integrity

---

The recent opinion piece by former Malaysian Bar presidents, while cloaked in concern for judicial independence, unwittingly undermines the very principles it claims to defend.
By framing the non-extension of three Federal Court judges’ tenures as a “profound mistake” and insinuating political retribution, the signatories engage in speculative lobbying that risks eroding public trust in the judiciary.
Here, we dismantle their arguments and expose the dangers of their approach.  
1. ​The flawed presumption of automatic extensions  
ADSThe core fallacy in the opinion piece is its treatment of tenure extensions under Article 125(1) as an entitlement rather than a discretionary constitutional provision.
They lament the non-extension for Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and judges Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Nallini Pathmanathan as “unacceptable treatment”, ignoring that extensions are subject to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s approval based on holistic considerations, not merely seniority or past performance.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan MatCrucially:  
No precedent for automatic renewals: They omit that extensions have been denied before (eg, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim), proving they are neither routine nor guaranteed.  
​Institutional renewal vs entrenchment: The judiciary thrives on a periodic infusion of new talent. Retaining judges indefinitely risks stagnation, whereas planned transitions allow for diverse perspectives and innovation.  
2. The hypocrisy of ‘perception’ as argument  
The piece weaponises unverified perceptions, claiming the non-extension signals “retribution” or a demand to “toe the line” without evidence.
This is not just irresponsible; it is institutionally damaging:
Unfounded allegations: Asserting that the government seeks “patronage or support” through judicial appointments is a grave accusation with zero substantiation. Such claims themselves constitute interference in judicial processes.  
​Ignoring due process: The government’s silence on extensions reflects adherence to due process, not indifference. Publicly debating appointments before formal decisions pressures the Agong and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), violating the separation of powers.
3. ​The real threat: Lobbying and public pressure campaigns
The former Bar presidents’ public intervention sets a dangerous precedent:
ADSPoliticising the judiciary: By mobilising ex-officials to demand specific outcomes, the Bar transforms judicial appointments into a political battleground. This mirrors past crises, like the 1988 judicial collapse, where external pressure fractured judicial independence.
​Chilling effect on judges: Open lobbying implies that judges require “protection” from the government, implying they are not impartial. This erodes public confidence far more than routine retirements. Such campaigns risk intimidating sitting judges.
4. ​Selective amnesia on the Bar’s own principles  
Ironically, the same signatories previously condemned tenure extensions as unconstitutional power grabs.
In 2018, the Malaysian Bar celebrated the resignations of the then Chief Justice Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad, declaring their appointments “blatantly unconstitutional”.
Today, they demand extensions for favoured judges, exposing double standards.
5. ​Forward path: Trusting institutions, rejecting lobbying  
The government’s restraint demonstrates fidelity to constitutional governance:  
a) ​Respect for the JAC’s mandate: The JAC, not lobby groups, holds statutory authority to evaluate judges. Its confidential deliberations ensure candid assessments.  
b) ​Systemic reforms over personality politics: Rather than fixating on individual judges, Malaysia should address structural issues like raising judicial retirement ages (as the Bar itself proposed)  or boosting salaries to attract talent.
c) ​Rejecting crisis narratives: The “exodus” of nine judges in two years reflects natural turnover, not collapse. Malaysia’s judiciary remains robust, with mechanisms to elevate new leaders.
Conclusion: Sovereignty over spectacle
“The independence of the judiciary is not preserved by public relations campaigns, but by resisting them.”
The former Bar presidents’ well-intentioned but misguided intervention risks substituting constitutional processes with mob appeal.
Their demands for transparency in appointments ignore that true judicial independence requires insulation from public opinion, not pandering to it.
The government’s commitment to the rule of law is proven by its refusal to cave to pressure, ensuring appointments remain merit-based, not personality-driven.
Malaysia’s judiciary deserves better than to be weaponised by legacy-seeking elites. It deserves a government that protects its independence by shielding it from their lobbying. - Mkini
ASHEEQ ALI SETHI ALIVI is Batu PKR division chief.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---