Former Malaysian Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan has rebuked the notion that a chief justice’s future should hinge on whether the PM takes offence to their remarks
Former law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz has clarified that his remarks on the non-extension of former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s tenure were his personal opinions and should not be construed as reflecting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s stance.
Responding to Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) co-founder Latheefa Koya, who had asked Anwar to explain whether Tengku Maimun’s tenure was cut short due to her speech in Malta, Nazri emphasised that his cordial relationship with Anwar does not equate to influence over government decisions.
“The prime minister has full authority over any decision he wishes to make. If this matter warrants discussion, perhaps it should be raised with the deputy prime minister or the law minister,” he said.
“Latheefa also needs to understand that I get along with everyone, including Perikatan Nasional leaders,” Nazri added.
He said his comments to the media were clearly personal opinions and should not have caused surprise or concern.
“I was more surprised that Latheefa, known as a capable lawyer, misinterpreted my statement. As a brilliant lawyer, it’s rather odd that she would take my comments as representing the prime minister’s decision.”
Nazri advised Latheefa to better understand the context of his remarks.
“In my statement, I mentioned that a chief justice should not interfere in political matters. I believe Latheefa understands this. Tengku Maimun’s overseas speech came across as meddling in politics.
“When she says judicial appointments must be free from prime ministerial interference, is she suggesting previous prime ministers — including the one who appointed her — interfered in the judiciary?
“She must remember that the prime minister is elected by the people and that office must be respected.”
Nazri added that if her remarks in Malta were the reason her tenure was not extended, it should not be considered unusual.
“If extended for another six months, she might continue making statements discrediting the prime minister and interfering in politics.
“But again, this is just my personal view, not the prime minister’s decision. So I hope Latheefa won’t be shocked again,” he said.
Sarcastically, he thanked Latheefa for acknowledging him as an influential Umno figure, despite only being a division chief.
“That’s how powerful Umno is — even a division chief is seen as a key player in national politics,” he quipped.
Latheefa had earlier described Nazri’s remarks as a “stunning and disturbing admission” that should be taken seriously, given his standing as a close Anwar ally and prominent Umno figure.
She was responding to Nazri’s interview with Scoop, in which he referenced Tengku Maimun’s April speech at the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta. There, the chief justice suggested removing the prime minister’s involvement in judicial appointments to dispel perceptions of political interference.
She revealed there were proposals to amend the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 and the Federal Constitution to eliminate the prime minister’s role.
Nazri criticised the remarks as inappropriate, particularly as Anwar was travelling abroad to secure foreign investment.
“You are the sitting chief justice. Anwar is the sitting prime minister. So you must be referring to him,” he said.
Former Malaysian Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan also condemned the notion that a chief justice’s future should depend on whether the prime minister is offended by their comments, warning it posed a serious threat to judicial independence.
Ambiga noted Tengku Maimun’s remarks were not personal but a principled stance on strengthening judicial independence by limiting executive influence — a long-held position of the Bar and common in mature democracies.
“Even if taken personally, offending the prime minister is not a valid reason to deny an extension,” she told Malaysiakini.
She praised the speech as courageous and dignified, noting that Tengku Maimun had always acted with integrity and grace.
Ambiga rejected the argument that her remarks could harm investor confidence, saying the opposite was true.
“A strong, independent judiciary attracts more investment — not one that is subservient or fearful of those in power.
“Hence, we should be lauding Tengku Maimun for her courage, not punishing her.
“Those of us who lived through the 1988 judicial crisis and the VK Lingam scandal are alarmed that we may be heading down a similarly regressive path. A crippled judiciary takes decades to rebuild. Is that what we want?”
Ambiga also questioned the decision not to extend the tenure of former Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim.
“This raises concerns that both may have been seen as ‘too independent’.”
She dismissed the argument that Anwar needs “time and space” to make judicial appointments, saying it was a weak excuse.
“Retirement ages are fixed and well known. Any delay undermines judicial independence.”
Ambiga added that if more time was indeed needed, that only strengthened the case for extending the terms of Tengku Maimun and Abang Iskandar.
She cited a previous example where it took 10 months for Hasnah Hashim to be sworn in as Chief Judge of Malaya. Hasnah is now acting chief justice.
“There have also been delays in other Federal Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court appointments. According to Bar vice-president Anand Raj, there are around 31 judicial vacancies across all levels.
“This number is growing. The acting chief justice and acting president of the Court of Appeal will also retire by the end of the year.
“Some High Court trials are now scheduled for 2030. This is unacceptable and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Sadly, all of this is happening under this government.”
Ambiga also highlighted that judges’ remuneration has not been revised in nearly a decade — a matter requiring urgent attention.
At its 77th AGM in March 2023, the Bar passed a resolution calling for an independent commission to review judicial salaries and benefits, advocating for a transparent and impartial process free from political interference. This, she said, is vital to protect judges from any undue influence, real or perceived.