A correction without a name, a process without a record

 The best way to restore public trust in the judiciary is not through emotional defences or personal endorsements. It is through procedural clarity and accountability.

From Kee Thariq K Zainal

In response to the growing public scrutiny surrounding the 2019 appointment of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, a recent article in Free Malaysia Today now claims that her name was properly proposed by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) – and that former attorney-general Tommy Thomas’s memoir was “quite inaccurate”.

But here’s the problem: this claim came from an unnamed former JAC member, and no record or documentation was produced. In other words, a constitutional question of great public importance has been “resolved” through an anonymous quote.

If the process was truly proper — then show us the minutes.

This isn’t a debate over memory

The chief justice’s defenders now want us to believe that a private recollection — made six years later and without attribution — should be taken as fact.

Yet the Thomas memoir at the heart of this debate has been publicly available since 2021. In it, he wrote plainly that he proposed Tengku Maimun’s name to then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who agreed and brought it to the Conference of Rulers. No mention was made of the JAC, nor was any qualification offered later.

If this version is wrong, why did no one — not the CJ, not the JAC, not the Prime Minister’s Office — correct the record for four years? And why now, only after Abdul Hamid Mohamad and other jurists raised concern?

The public deserves more than reassurances

Let us be clear: this is not about attacking anyone’s character. It is about a process — one governed by law — and about the legitimacy of appointments to the most powerful legal office in the land.

The JAC was created to bring transparency and merit into judicial selection. If it was followed in Tengku Maimun’s case, then there must be a paper trail — a recommendation, meeting notes, or minutes.

If this latest claim is true, then:

Disclose the minutes. Declassify the letter. Let the record speak.

Anonymous sources cannot resolve constitutional ambiguity.

Silence is created doubt

The irony here is that the very ambiguity now blamed on critics was created by years of institutional silence. The legal fraternity welcomed the appointment. The Bar was satisfied. Few questioned the sudden leap in seniority because the outcome was, for many, politically and symbolically pleasing.

But satisfaction with the outcome does not excuse failure to respect procedure.

Today, those same voices who said nothing then are now rushing to assure us that “everything was in order”. If it was, it should not require whispers. It should require only a release of documents.

Let truth prevail — not sentiment

The best way to restore public trust in the judiciary is not through emotional defences or personal endorsements. It is through procedural clarity and accountability.

If the CJ’s appointment was lawful and proper, we welcome that. If Thomas’s memoir was wrong, let it be corrected — formally and factually.

But as long as one side quotes published memoirs and the other counters with anonymous denials, this issue will remain unsettled.

It is time to stop asking the public to choose whom to believe — and instead give them something to verify.

Release the minutes. - FMT

Kee Thariq K Zainal is an advocate and solicitor based in Selangor.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.