Before the swearing in on 28th July, we still do not have a NEW Chief Justice, etc - so, should the King DELAY the swearing in and CONFIRM first that the appointment is according to law before continuing to confirm the NEW Chief Justice....? If later, it is found that the appointments were ILLEGAL for failure to strictly comply with the law, then Datuk Wan
Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais and Datuk Azizah Nawawi may be embarrassed unnecessarily... best to be SURE before proceeding with the appointment
The
swearing-in and signing of the oath of office and oath of allegiance
before the King will be held on July 28 at Istana Negara.
The issue is that PM Anwar Ibrahim may have IGNORED the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission to be able to get 'his own' choice of Judges to be appointed.
Since, the enactment of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 was enacted, Parliament decided that the Prime Minister will have NO absolute discretion with regard to appointment of judges - now the Prime Minister is RESTRICTED to the names vetted, approved and recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission only.
This deals with the earlier problem revealed by the Lingam Tape Scandal 2007 - which revealed that OTHERS could and may have influenced the appointment of Judges, or even the judges that heard certain cases. To SOLVE this issue, the Judicial Commission Act 2009 was tabled.
The Judicial Appointments Commission, will as soon as vacancy is apparent, start working to identify persons/judges that they will then recommend to the Prime Minister, who will then advise the King to appoint.
The JAC would reasonably act FAST - so we do not end up with a vacancy(or a prolonged vacancy) - so was it the Prime Minister that DELAYED after receipt of the recommendations of the JAC? Did he fail to ADVICE the King to appoint? We ask these questions because:-
a) The 9 month delay in appointing a NEW Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya;
b) The delay that caused unfilled vacancies of Judges in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court (more than 29 + 2 vacancies); and
c) The delay in the appointment of the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, both had retired by 2nd July (The JAC would reasonably have already made the needed recommendations - and a new Chief Justice could have happened on 2nd July??)
## There was a delay before the announcement of the appointment - 16/17 days delay? WHY?
In a surprise twist, appellate court judge Datuk Wan
Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh has been named the new Chief Justice. In a
statement issued just after midnight on Friday, the office of the Chief
Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia also named Federal Court
judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais as the President of the Court of Appeal (COA)
and COA judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi as the Chief Judge of Sabah and
Sarawak. Edge, 18/7/2025
Did the Prime Minister IGNORE the recommendation of the JAC, which would reasonably have been made way before the CJ retired?
Did the Prime Minister cause another JAC to sit thereafter, who made NEW Recommendations - which may be a BREACH of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009?
TOO MANY UNCERTAINTIES, ...and best that ALL these doubts be resolved BEFORE the King appoints the NEW Chief Justice..
The Malaysian Bar will be having Extraordinary General Meeting on 26/7/2023, and I have put in 2 Motions, which I hope will be discussed and voted upon...
Motion on ‘Judicial Crisis’ In
Malaysia – PM must follow the law in the appointing/elevating Judges as
is
Whereas
1. After
the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, the absolute discretion of the
Prime Minister to appoint Judges as he pleases was removed, and thereafter the
Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) chooses and recommends to the Prime
Minister, who then advises the King on appointments/elevation of judges.
Thereafter, the Prime Minister cannot advice the King on the appointment/elevation
of judges, save those who had been recommended by the JAC.
2. The
current Judicial Crisis concerns today revolves around whether the Prime
Minister is appointing or elevating Judges, including appointing the Chief
Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the High Court of
Malaya and the Chief Judge of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak as recommended
by the Judicial Appointments Commission in accordance to law, or is he breaking
the law by choosing his own judges.
3. All
that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim needed to do to remove these growing concerns
was to clearly come out and say that he has always advised the King on
appointment, elevation of Judges and appointed to high Judicial Office
persons/judges as was recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC)
– hence he has followed the law. But sadly to date he has NOT yet done that.
4. “For
the past two-and-a-half years, I have never interfered with the court’s
decisions,” he [Anwar Ibrahim] was quoted as saying by Free Malaysia Today.
(Malay Mail, 11/7/2025). That is good, but unfortunately that is not the issue,
as the issue is whether he advised the King on Judicial appointments those that
were recommended by the JAC or not.
5. The
Lingam Tape Scandal of 2007 was really a concern about whether lawyers,
politicians, corporate figures, judges and/or other are involved directly or
indirectly in influencing the Prime Minister in deciding who shall the Prime
Minister advise the King to be appointed Judges, which Judges should be
appointed to higher courts, and which Judge will be appointed as the 4 heads of
the Judiciary. For a brief understanding, of what the issue was, see
Attachment 1 – a Malaysiakini Report entitled ‘Revisiting the VK Lingam tape’
.
6. On
September 26, 2007, about 2,000 lawyers gathered at the entrance of the Palace
of Justice in Putrajaya, before marching to the Prime Minister’s Office to
deliver the Bar Council’s memorandum. Then Malaysian Bar president Datuk Ambiga
Sreenevasan was quoted by The Straits Times saying at the march: “We are
walking for justice, we want judicial reform” and “Lawyers don't walk every
day. When lawyers walk, something is wrong.”. One of 2 memorandums submitted
that day was the Bar Council’s paper on the setting up of an independent
judicial commission.
7. There
was even a Royal Commission of Inquiry. The RCI concluded its finding by saying
that not only must the patient be treated, but the disease eradicated. “In
other words, a determined effort must be made to get to the root of the malaise
which has been uncovered,” it said.
8. This
ultimately led to the tabling, and passing of the Judicial Appointments
Commission Act 2009, and thereafter any Prime Minister is required to only
advise the King on judicial appointments based only on the names recommended by
the JAC. The Prime Minister cannot propose any other names to be appointed..
9. Since
the formation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), there has been no allegations
that any other past Prime Ministers have refused to follow the JAC’s
recommendations, and did choose Judges on their own until Prime Minister Anwar
Ibrahim.
10. It
must be noted that the Conference of Rulers have accepted this new JAC and the current
process of Judicial Appointments. They have also in end November 2022, made
specific recommendations for the JAC Act 2009 - to remove the role of the Prime
Minister in the appointment of JAC members.
The Conference of Rulers is proposing
that five of the nine members of the Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) no
longer be appointed by the prime minister so that its composition is more
balanced and does not carry the interest of any party. The Yang
Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, who chaired
the 260th Conference of Rulers meeting today, said in terms of the judicial
system, the Conference of Rulers is responsible for the appointment of judges
in Malaysia, and at present, this process is seen as having weaknesses that can
be improved, JAC's membership included.
His Highness said JAC plays a key role in
proposing judicial nominations, and therefore its membership was
critical in ensuring that the committee continued to be looked up to and is
capable of nominating judges of calibre and integrity. "Instead, it (power
to appoint JAC members) should be given to several other institutions such as
the Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Society, Advocates Association of Sarawak and
Parliament's Select Committee. "Currently, JAC has nine members, four of
whom are senior judges while five more are
individuals appointed by the Prime Minister," Tuanku Muhriz
said in his message in conjunction with the two-day 260th Conference of Rulers
meeting that began yesterday at Istana Negara.- Astro
Awani, 30/11/2022
11. The
JAC 2009 is a valid law, but it still has some flaws. One example, is that the
Act now provides the JAC makes 3 recommendations for a High Court judge’s
vacancy, which the Prime Minister can ask for 2 other recommendations – this allowed
the Prime Minister ‘choices’, which may be not right, as the JAC should rightly
just make a single recommendation for any 1 vacancy.
12. The
Malaysian Bar was unhappy with the Bill when it was tabled, and issued the Bar
Council's Comments on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 (see
attachment 2), but sadly many matters have yet to be acted upon.
13. The
fact that the Federal Constitution, in particular Article 122B, was not amended,
does NOT make the JAC 2009 ultra vires the Federal Constitution. The JAC
2009 merely limited the choices that the Prime Minister had - to just the persons/judges
as recommended by the JAC. It removed the possibility of Prime Minister
choosing his/her ‘own persons’ to be judges or appointed to high Judicial
office.
14. The
Prime Minister had to still fulfil all his ‘consulting’ obligations in Article
122B. It must be noted is consultation was just that, there was no need for
consent/approval from those consulted. The Prime
Minister ultimately makes the final decision. The only difference after JAC
2009, is that the decision of the Prime Minister now is confined to just the
persons/judges recommended by the JAC.
15. The
Prime Minister cannot anymore advise the King to appoint or elevate any judge
other than those recommended by the JAC. To do otherwise would be a breach of
law.
16. Our
current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim seems to be ‘confused’, as he has been
repeatedly reported saying that he will follow the Constitution, making no
mention about following the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009[JAC 2009]
which is worrying. That is an Act of Parliament, that received also the Royal
Assent.
17. “What’s
important is that the (judiciary) appointment process, as stipulated in the
constitution and respective jurisdictions, is upheld,” Berita Harian quoted him
{Anwar Ibrahim} as saying when met after performing his Friday prayers in
Putrajaya today. The prime minister added that any change in the judicial
appointment mechanism will have to be instituted through constitutional
amendments. “If (any party) feels there’s a need to amend (the appointment
process), propose a constitutional amendment. But, for this field, we will
follow the process that has long been in practice,” Anwar said. (Malaysiakini, 11/7/2025).
18. He
was right that the appointed process is as stipulated in the Federal
Constitution and relevant legislations (assuming that he really meant relevant
legislations when he wrongly said [or it was wrongly reported] ‘respective jurisdictions).
If anyone wants the Judicial appointment process to be changed, there must be
amendments to the Constitution/laws – which means Anwar rightly will have to
comply with the JAC 2009 Act until it is repealed or amended.
19. If
PM Anwar Ibrahim believed that the JAC 2009 was illegal or ultra vires the
Federal Constitution, then he should have gone back to Parliament, and REPEALED
the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, or amended it as he pleased.
20. As
it stands, the Prime Minister is still duty bound to comply with JAC 2009. He
cannot advise the King to make any judicial appointments, unless it was a name
recommended by the JAC.
21. To
date, there is still uncertainty as to whether the King acting on the advice of
the Prime Minister has been appointing persons as High Court Judges, Court of
Appeal Judges, Federal Court Judges or judges to high Judicial Office in
accordance with the recommendations of the JAC. If the Prime Minister had not
been following the recommendation of the JAC, then all such appointments would
be illegal, for failure to comply with JAC 2009.
22. The
9-month delay in the appointment of Chief Judge of Malaya, and the unfilled
vacancy of about 29 High Court and other judges, now 31 judges raise concerns.
Was it the failure of the JAC to make speedy recommendation when the vacancy
was about to happen? Was it the failure of the Prime Minister to act speedily
and advice the King? Was the delay caused by the King who failed to speedily
act on the advice of the Prime Minister?
23. The
appointment of the sitting Attorney General/Public Prosecutor Ahmad Terrirudin
bin Mohd Salleh as Federal Court Judge is another concern. It is most unlikely
that the JAC would have recommended a sitting AG/PP. In comparison, the
appointment of a former AG/PP before happens
well after he retires.
24. The
current situation also raises question on the validity of the appointment of the
25 judges on 12/11/2024, which included Chief Judge of
Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Ahmad
Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, eight Court of Appeal judges - Datuk Noorin Badaruddin;
Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril; Datuk Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab; Datuk Faizah
Jamaludin; Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid; Datuk Ismail Brahim; Datuk Wan Ahmad
Farid Wan Salleh and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, and 15 High Court
Judges. If the said judges were as recommended by the JAC, then there is no
issue. However, if the appointment was not per the JAC’s recommendation, then
the appointment may be ‘illegal’ or void ab initio as it is not in compliance
with the current law. What then is the implication of the
decisions/judgments of cases presided by these questionable judges?
25. Now,
at least one of those whose legality of appointment may be in question is the
current Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim (currently
Acting Chief Justice), who is now also in the Judicial Appointments Commission,
for this may make all subsequent recommendations of the JAC itself ‘tainted’, and
possibly invalid.
26. Many
have spoken out about this issue. About
1,500 Malaysian lawyers also marched in “Walk to Safeguard Judicial
Independence” and handed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister on 14/7/2025.
27. Despite
that, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has to date still failed to assure Malaysians
that he has always advised the King on the appointed of Judges, and the
appointment judges to judicial high office as recommended by the Judicial
Appointments Commission, in compliance with the current law.
Therefore, it is resolved
A.
That the Malaysian Bar is of the strong position
that to ensure Independence of the Judiciary, and safeguard the Right to Fair
Trial, the Prime Minister or the Executive arm of government, should have NO
Role in the appointment, elevation and/or the appointment of judges to High
Office in the Judiciary. The Prime Minister, in accordance with law, shall
follow the recommendation of the JAC.
B.
That the Malaysian Bar call on the Prime
Minister and/or the Judicial Appointments Commission to forthwith confirm that the
appointments/elevation of Judges including the appointment of Judges to Judicial
High Office was done in accordance to law, in particular the Judicial
Appointments Act 2009, and that all appointed has been as recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission;
C.
The Malaysian Bar agree and join in the call by
Conference of Rulers for an amendment to the Judicial Appointments Commission
Act 2009, to remove the role of the Prime Minister in choosing the members of
the Judicial Appointments Commission;
D.
That the Bar Council do whatsoever deemed necessary
to educate the public, and to restore Judicial Independence and Integrity and
the Right to Fair Trial, including the organizing more peaceful assemblies,
taking legal actions, submitting law reform proposals, etc.
Attachment 1 – Revisiting the VK Lingam tape,
Malaysiakini, 19/6/2019
Attachment 2 - Bar Council's
Comments on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 - https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/legal-and-general-news/members-opinions/bar-council-s-comments-on-the-judicial-appointments-commission-bill-2008
Motion proposed by:
Charles Hector Fernandez
BC/C/712
17/7/2025
Motion Asking
King to Delay Swearing in of CJ, Etc Until Compliance With Law Confirmed.
Whereas
1. In
a statement issued just after midnight on Friday (18/7/2025), the office of the
Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia named Appellate court judge
Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh has been named the new
Chief Justice, Federal Court judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais as the President of the
Court of Appeal (COA) and COA judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi as the Chief Judge of
Sabah and Sarawak. [Edge, 18/7/2025]
2. It
also stated that the swearing-in and signing of the oath of office and
oath of allegiance before the King will be held on July 28 at Istana Negara.
3. We
are in the midst of a ‘Judicial Crisis’ created by doubts as to whether Prime
Minister Anwar is choosing/appointing/elevating persons/judges in compliance
with existing law.
4. After
the enactment of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, it removed the
absolute discretion of the Prime
Minister to chose and advice the King on judicial appointments, and thereafter,
Prime Minister can ONLY advice the King to appoint those recommended by the
Judicial Appointments Commission. Hence, thereafter, if the Prime Minister
recommends any person/judge to be appointed or elevated that was not
recommended by the JAC, it will be a breach of law, and make any such
appointments illegal.
5. It
must be noted that the Rulers Conference have also accepted this new process,
and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, and in fact also did make
specific proposals for amendment of this Act, in short to remove the role of
the Prime Minister in even the appointing of members of the Judicial
Appointments Commission.
6. If
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or this present government, wanted to change
the law, and revert to the earlier procedure that gives the Prime Minister
absolute discretion in choosing persons/judges to be appointed judges, Court of
Appeal Judges, Federal Court Judges or the Judiciary High Office(Chief Justice,
President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya and
the Chief Judge of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak), then, rightly, the Judicial
Appointments Commission Act 2009 should have been REPEALED, and/or amended by
Parliament.
7. As
the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 has yet to be repealed, this Act
of Parliament that also received the royal (Yang Di Pertuan Agung) assent must
be obeyed. Even if Prime Minister Anwar has a different opinion, he still has
to follow the law as it is.
8. A
judge appointed/elevated or appointed to high Judicial office, not in
compliance with law, will be considered ‘ILLEGAL’ or the said appointment be seen
as ‘void ab initio’. It will also affect trials, decisions and judgments where such
‘illegal’ judges will be involved in. It is a MOST SERIOUS issue.
9. Until
the DOUBTS surrounding these appointments are resolved to ensure Malaysians and
the world that these judicial appointments are legal, and in accordance with
law, it may be best that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung delays swearing-in
and signing of the oath of office and oath of allegiance before the King that
is now scheduled to be 28 July 2005 at the Istana Negara.
10. Amongst
others, what is needed is the confirmation that judicial appointments by the
King acting on the advice of the Prime Minister were duly recommended by the
Judicial Appointments Commission as required by law, and NOT as a result of the
Prime Minister acting on his own not in compliance with law advising the King
to appoint/elevate persons/judges, of his own choosing – not those who have
been recommended by the JAC.
11. The
importance of an INDEPENDENT Judiciary is a paramount in a Democracy, as the
Judiciary also plays a crucial role in checking the power of the executive
branch through judicial review, which allows courts to review the
constitutionality of executive actions and ensure they don't overstep their
bounds. This power helps maintain a balance of power and uphold the rule of law.
That is also why the Prime Minister, and/or the Executive branch of government
best not have any role in Judicial appointments. FAIR TRIAL rights can also be
compromised if Judges are appointed, or can be ‘controlled’ by the Prime Minister
(or the Executive Arm) of government. If judges of a Prime Minister’s choosing
exist, faith in the Judiciary will diminish. Can parties in legal dispute with
Anwar Ibrahim personally (or as Prime Minister or head of government) expect
justice if their case is heard by a Judge chosen by the Prime Minister? We made
reforms, to strengthen the independence of the Judiciary, in the creation of an
Independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Therefore, it is resolved
A.
That the Malaysian Bar calls on the Yang
Di-Pertuan Agung(King) to DELAY the swearing-in and signing of the oath of
office and oath of allegiance before the King that is scheduled for 28/7/2025
at the Istana Negara, until it is CONFIRMED that the choosing of the new Chief
Justice, President of the Court of Appeal (COA) and Chief Judge of Sabah and
Sarawak was done in accordance with law, which includes the Judicial Appointments
Commission Act 2009.
B.
That the Malaysian Bar calls for the King, the
Rulers Conference, the Judiciary and even the Judicial Appointments Commission
to speedily ‘HIGHLIGHT’ any non-compliance in law concerning the appointment/elevation
of judges so that such abuse of power and/or non-compliance can be dealt with
speedily. There should be transparency.
C.
That the Malaysian Bar calls on the Prime
Minister and the government to respect the importance of an INDEPENDENT
Judiciary, who plays also the important role in a democracy being a check to
prevent abuse of power of any Prime Minister, and the executive branch of
government, and ensuring a FAIR TRIAL even if one of the parties is the Prime
Minister or ‘friend’ of government.
Motion proposed by:
Charles Hector Fernandez
BC/C/712
18/7/2025
These are MOTIONS, yet to discussed and passed at the Bar EGM on 26/7/2025 - which may later be also amended(possibly even substantially) - and I will inform you of the outcome of these Motions - Hope that they will be passed and become Malaysian Bar Resolutions.
I have tried to remind people about the history - and how Malaysia decided to restrict Prime Minister's choices of who can advise the King to appoint as Judges.
The BIGGEST WORRY is that once 'REFORMASI' Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and this PH-led government may be seeking TO ERASE the advancement we made in ensuring Judicial Independence - taking us back to the days when the Prime Minister picks and chooses our Judges, Chief Justice(head of the Judiciary), etc..
As it is, Malaysians are TROUBLED with the 'too much power' the Prime Minister has in choosing and appointing/removing the heads of LAW ENFORCEMENT - Much criticism in PM Anwar's decision to provide a NEW CONTRACT yet again to Azam Baki to continue to be the Head of MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) - remembering also that the delay of the MACC Investigation was a factor that led to Zahid Hamidi getting a DNAA>
Then, under PM Anwar Ibrahim, we had 3 Attorney General/Public Prosecutors - and the current Public Prosecutor did 'questionable' actions
- the WITHDRAWAL of the Appeal to the Court of Appeal, with regard the acquittal by the High Court(without even the Defence being called) in the Zahid Hamidi's VLN case > WHY? Would not it have been GOOD if the Court of Appeal had confirmed the correctness of the High Court's Judge decision to acquit Zahid Hamidi? Why file an Appeal(after public pressure) to then withdraw the Appeal?
- then, there was a DNAA in Najib's Case?
All in all, we may not just be facing a JUDICIAL CRISIS - but a CRISIS in the administration of CRIMINAL justice in Malaysia involving not just JUDGES, but also Prosecution and Law Enforcement.
Should there be REFORMS to also safeguard the INDEPENDENCE and professionalism of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement - should we require Parliamentary Approval before the Prime Minister can decided on the Public Prosecutor and even heads of Law Enforcement. It is DANGEROUS when a PM has too much power..
See earlier posts:-
Wan Ahmad Farid appointed as new Chief Justice, Abu Bakar Jais is COA President while Azizah is Sabah, Sarawak CJ
18 Jul 2025, 12:29 amUpdated - 12:46 am
KUALA
LUMPUR (July 18): In a surprise twist, appellate court judge Datuk Wan
Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh has been named the new Chief Justice.
In a
statement issued just after midnight on Friday, the office of the Chief
Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia also named Federal Court
judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais as the President of the Court of Appeal (COA)
and COA judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi as the Chief Judge of Sabah and
Sarawak.
The
swearing-in and signing of the oath of office and oath of allegiance
before the King will be held on July 28 at Istana Negara.
The
announcement comes after weeks of criticism levelled against the
government for its lack of clarity over top judicial positions left
vacant.
Former CJ
Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat reached the mandatory retirement age of 66
on July 1. Tengku Maimun, along with former COA President Tan Sri Abang
Iskandar Abang Hashim, who retired on July 2, were not given the
conventional six-month extension usually granted to Federal Court
judges.
Since
then, Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) Tan Sri Hasnah Mohamed Hashim had been
taking on the responsibilities of the CJ’s post while apex court judge
Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof had been taking on the responsibilities of the
COA President’s post.
Wan Ahmad Farid, ex-Umno man who started his journey in the judiciary since 2015
Wan Ahmad Farid was deputy home minister from March 2008 to April 2009 during Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration.
Wan Ahmad
Farid, who is a former Umno politician from Terengganu, served as a
senator and was the deputy home minister from March 2008 to April 2009
during Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration.
It was
reported previously that Wan Ahmad Farid, 62, resigned from Umno before
he entered the judiciary as a Judicial Commissioner in December 2015.
Wan Ahmad
Farid has notably recused himself from hearing Umno-related cases in
the past, as he said the public’s perception of the independence of the
judiciary should not be put in doubt.
For
instance, in May 2017, Wan Ahmad Farid recused himself from presiding
over former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's defamation suit
against former Petaling Jaya Utara Member of Parliament Tony Pua.
In 2022,
he again recused himself from hearing Najib's application to allow a
King's Council from the UK to represent him in his final appeal in the
SRC International Sdn Bhd case.
In
November last year Wan Ahmad Farid also ordered the police to complete
their investigations into the death of Teoh Beng Hock, who died 16 years
ago, within six months. He found that the police investigation was not
conducted with all convenient speed.
More
recently, Wan Ahmad Farid was part of the three-member panel which
unanimously ruled that the government would retain the massive disputed
'Duta enclave' land, on the grounds that Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd
is not eligible to the land title.
Following
Wan Ahmad Farid’s stint as a JC, he was confirmed as a High Court judge
in August 2019. He was elevated to the Court of Appeal (COA) on Nov 12
last year.
The University of West London alumnus is currently the 26th-senior judge among the appellate court judges.
Abu Bakar Jais began his journey as a judge over a decade ago
Abu Bakar is an alumnus of Universiti Malaya and University of London.
Abu Bakar
Jais, 63, became a judicial commissioner in July 2013 after decades in
private practice as a lawyer. He was confirmed as a High Court judge in
March 2016. He was elevated to the COA in December 2019 and then
subsequently elevated to the apex court in June 2023.
He is an alumnus of Universiti Malaya and University of London.
In one of
his decisions last year, Abu Bakar along with Abang Iskandar had ruled
in the majority to dismiss a woman's final challenge to change her
Muslim religious status. Former apex court judge Datuk Mary Lim Thiam
Suan dissented.
Abu Bakar
said that although he is aware that some held the view that the Shariah
Courts are inferior courts, which would enable the Civil Courts to
possibly "review its decisions", there were case laws which stated
otherwise. He added that the Shariah High Court is a competent court
under the Federal Constitution.
In 2017,
Abu Bakar dismissed former prime minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad's suit
against then-PM Najib over the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal.
He ruled that a PM cannot be sued for abuse of power in office, as he
is not a public official, but rather, merely a member in public office's
administration.
Azizah, currently the senior-most COA judge,
previously served as the head of the Civil Division in the Attorney
General's Chambers.
Azizah, a career judicial and legal services woman
Datuk
Azizah Nawawi, 63, was appointed as a JC in November 2012, and was
confirmed as a High Court judge in September 2014. She was elevated to
the COA in August 2019.
Azizah, a
Sarawakian, is the senior-most COA judge at the moment, had previously
served as the head of the Civil Division in the Attorney General's
Chambers (AGC).
Most
recently, she was the sole dissenting judge in a three-member panel
presiding over Najib's appeal on a royal addendum which allows him to
serve the remainder of his prison term under house arrest. She ruled
that some evidence produced to back Najib's claim was based on hearsay
and there was no merit to adduce any other fresh evidence. - Edge, 18/7/2025
Posts
