I am puzzled by the reaction of former law minister Nazri Aziz in rising to the defence of Anwar Ibrahim in response to remarks made by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat on the need to reform the process of judicial appointments.
During a law conference in Malta, Maimun rightly called for amendments to the Judicial Appointments Commission Act and the Federal Constitution to ensure that the prime minister does not retain the final say in the appointment of senior judicial officers. She was advocating for institutional reform, not personal criticism.
Under the current system, although the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is tasked with identifying and recommending candidates, the prime minister retains overriding power in the final selection.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints judicial officers based on the prime minister’s advice, effectively giving the head of government substantial influence over the judiciary.
Maimun’s call, far from being politically motivated, reflects a long-standing concern among legal scholars and reform advocates: the need to uphold judicial independence and safeguard the separation of powers. These are not new concerns. They are embedded in the broader debate about governance, accountability, and democratic maturity in Malaysia.
Nazri, however, took issue with the Chief Justice’s remarks, suggesting that as a civil servant nearing retirement, she should not politicise the matter.
He also claimed that existing checks and balances are sufficient, and that the prime minister’s dominant role is justified because he is an elected leader entrusted by Parliament.
This argument, though familiar, is no longer tenable in light of modern democratic norms.
In an era where transparency and independence of institutions are paramount, the concentration of power, especially in appointments to the judiciary, poses a risk to the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary must not only be independent, but also be seen to be independent.
More curiously, Nazri’s reaction suggests he was defending Anwar personally. Yet, Maimun was clearly referring to the institutional role of the prime minister in the appointment process, not to any specific individual.
Even if her remarks were indirectly aimed at the current administration, they are justified. After all, it was Anwar himself, long before becoming prime minister, who spoke about institutional reform and the depoliticisation of state apparatuses, including the judiciary.
Nazri may see his defence of Anwar as necessary, but in doing so, he downplays the importance of a critical self-examination of our institutions. His claim that Maimun should have waited for a better time to make her concerns known is disingenuous. If not now, when?
If anything, Maimun should be lauded for speaking out especially in a climate where many in the public service shy away from addressing structural deficiencies.
Her insights, shaped by years of experience at the highest levels of the judiciary, carry more weight than the rhetoric of political loyalty.
Nazri’s criticisms miss the broader point. The judiciary must be shielded from political influence, not just in theory, but in practice. Suppressing calls for reform only entrenches the very weaknesses that undermine public confidence in our institutions.
If Malaysia is to progress toward genuine democratic governance, critical perspectives such as Maimun’s should be welcomed, not silenced. In an otherwise moribund bureaucracy, her voice is a rare and necessary breath of fresh air.
P Ramasamy is the former deputy chief minister of Penang and chairman of Urimai.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow.
