It also wants a royal commission of inquiry to investigate allegations against him

The statutory body, which represents about 24,000 lawyers in the peninsula, is seeking an order of certiorari from the High Court to quash the prime minister’s decision to appoint Terrirudin.
It also wants a mandamus order to compel the prime minister to exercise his prerogative to appoint a member to the JAC in accordance with the laws of Malaysia, established conventions and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009.
In the application filed last week, the Bar also sought another mandamus order for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry to investigate allegations against Terrirudin, with the findings to be made public.
It likewise wants to compel Terrirudin to show cause and disclose the basis on which the prime minister appointed him to sit on the JAC.
Besides Terrirudin, the Bar named Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the JAC and the government as respondents.
The Bar is also seeking an order of prohibition to restrain the respondents from appointing Terrirudin to any position of an office-bearer in the judiciary pending the disposal of the judicial review proceedings.
Bar secretary Murshidah Mustafa has filed an affidavit in support of the application.
Hearing for leave to commence a judicial review has been fixed on March 16 before Justice Aliza Sulaiman.
Terrirudin, a former attorney-general, was elevated to the Federal Court in November 2024.
His appointment to the JAC is said to have departed from the longstanding practice of assigning a senior apex court judge to the position.
Under the JAC Act, which came into force in 2009, the commission recommends to the prime minister suitable persons for appointment as judges of the High Court and elevation to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.
The king then makes the appointments on the advice of the prime minister and after consulting the Conference of Rulers.
Two months ago, FMT reported that a police probe into allegations of judicial interference by a Federal Court judge had been closed due to insufficient evidence, as no suspect could be identified for allegedly leaking classified information on the matter.
A source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the investigation was carried out to determine whether there were potential breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1972. - FMT


No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.