As the calendar inches toward June 30, the date marking the retirement of Malaysia’s Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the nation is gripped by an intensifying judicial drama. Instead of a seamless transition, the top echelon of Malaysia’s judiciary is overshadowed by uncertainty and deepening controversy.
Under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, a federal court judge may serve until the age of 66, with the possibility of a six-month extension granted by the king. This extension, a routine administrative procedure in previous transitions, has yet to materialize for Tengku Maimun. The silence has been deafening—and perplexing.
Even more curious is the fact that her presumed successor, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, also faces mandatory retirement on July 2. Yet he, too, has not received any confirmation of extension. The next most senior judge, Federal Court Justice Nallini Pathmanathan, due to retire in August, is likewise in limbo.
At present, only Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, has received a service extension, allowing her to remain in position until November. This leaves Malaysia, for the first time in its legal history, staring down the prospect of simultaneous vacancies in its top two judicial posts without any formal indication of succession.
Controversial contender
This vacuum has sparked feverish speculation. The name Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh—former Attorney General and recently appointed Federal Court judge—has surfaced as a likely candidate. His ascent has raised eyebrows, not least because his judicial appointment was made on the advice of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and also due to his relatively junior status.
The proximity of Terrirudin’s elevation to the expiration of terms for senior judges has fueled certain speculation that his appointment may be a political maneuver. The process, which constitutionally involves the prime minister advising the king, has drawn sharp criticism due to Anwar’s unresolved legal entanglements.
Indeed, Anwar stands as the only sitting prime minister in Malaysia’s history with an active personal lawsuit—filed by Yusoff Rawther, alleging sexual misconduct. The unresolved nature of this civil case creates what many legal minds argue is an unavoidable conflict of interest in any executive role he plays in judicial appointments.
This concern is not hypothetical. Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has publicly cautioned against straying from established seniority traditions, warning that bypassing more experienced judges may erode the judiciary’s institutional stability and morale while straining the doctrine of separation of powers.
Judicial turmoil
The controversy has deepened with revelations of internal discord within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
Tensions reportedly escalated in a recent JAC meeting following the questioning of a senior judge—later revealed to be Ahmad Terrirudin—over allegations of interference in judicial appointments. The situation reached a crescendo when a police report was lodged against a journalist probing these leaks, further fueling concerns over press freedom and transparency.
These events catalyzed the formation of a cross-partisan body, the Secretariat to Defend the Judiciary, spearheaded by former minister and Hindraf leader Waytha Moorthy, alongside Rawther’s lawyer, Rafique Rashid.
The roundtable they convened on June 23 brought together an improbable coalition of political veterans—Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Muhyiddin Yassin, Rais Yatim, Zaid Ibrahim, Takiyuddin Hassan, and Dr P Ramasamy—who set aside past rivalries in defense of judicial independence.
Their joint declaration outlined six demands, notably the urgent need for judicial appointments to be based strictly on merit, integrity and seniority, and for the prime minister to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Most strikingly, they called for Anwar to take a leave of absence until his court case is resolved.
This extraordinary convergence of former adversaries underlines the gravity of the moment. Malaysia stands at a constitutional crossroads. The stakes are high—not merely in terms of who will occupy the judiciary’s top posts, but whether the nation can preserve its legal integrity amid executive encroachment.
Observers have also drawn comparisons with Prime Minister Anwar’s recent controversial decision to appoint Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—himself facing unresolved legal proceedings in his home country—as his personal adviser in ASEAN affairs. That appointment raised international eyebrows and domestic criticism, casting doubt over Anwar’s commitment to principles of transparency and accountability.
More recently, Anwar’s image has been further dented when he became the first sitting prime minister in Malaysian history to seek legal immunity from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Yusoff Rawther. Although the court has dismissed the immunity request, Anwar’s legal team is reportedly planning to appeal the decision.
This move has fueled additional scrutiny over the prime minister’s respect for due legal process and intensified public debate over his impartiality in overseeing judicial matters.
Questions begging answers
So, why the delay in naming Tengku Maimun’s successor? Why elevate Ahmad Terrirudin despite his controversial standing? And crucially, is this a calculated consolidation of power by a prime minister still fighting personal legal battles?
What happens in the coming days will set a precedent not just for Malaysia’s judiciary but for the state of the nation’s democracy. The judiciary, long regarded as the last line of defense in upholding the rule of law, now finds itself under unprecedented scrutiny.
Will institutional integrity hold firm, or will political expediency prevail? The answers, or lack thereof, may chart the course of Malaysian democracy for years to come.
