In her recent statement while delivering a speech at the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta, the chief justice mooted a proposal to amend the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 to remove the prime minister’s role in the appointment of judges.
In justifying her statement Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, inter alia, argued that removing the prime minister’s role in judicial appointments would fortify the impartiality of the selection process hence ensuring that such appointments are solely based on merits.
Yes, meritocracy should be the rule of the game.
By relinquishing the PM’s involvement in the appointment of judges it primarily seeks to jettison any unwarranted perception of political influence in such an appointment.
Being the head of the judiciary, one should not harbour any hesitation to accept such a splendid idea. After all, who is the best person to voice out such a proposal if not the maestro of the judicial system in the country?
Ensuring judicial independence
By making such a recommendation I believe the learned CJ’s sole concern is merely to see that judicial independence not only be duly preserved but strengthened as well.
In doing so, it must begin with the selection process of judges which is to be totally free from any unnecessary negative perceptions.
It goes without saying a truly independent judiciary would aspire and boost the confidence, especially in the government which is built on the agenda of reforms.
To his credit, even the prime minister is reported to have agreed to bring the necessary reforms in the selection of judges.
Mixed reactions
Despite such an admirable proposal, it has, however, received mixed reactions even from some persons from the legal fraternity.
The dissenters of her proposal argue that the prime minister’s involvement in appointing judges is not meant to control the judiciary.
On the other hand, it only seeks to ensure that the government is kept abreast of all the developments within the judicial institution.
They also contend that the prime minister’s function in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointment of judges is duly enshrined in Article 122B of the Federal Constitution and such a provision is, from the outset, meant to involve the government on matters related to the judiciary.
No one disputes such a constitutional provision. But our Federal Constitution is not cast in stone incapable of being amended!
Truth be told I find this argument, with the greatest respect, rings hollow. It seems to me this view does not really concern the lingering perception that any involvement of the PM in the appointment of a judicial appointee would, in all likelihood, weaken the impartiality of the selection process thus emasculating the true independence of the judiciary - the hallmark of the notion of separation of powers. - Mkini
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.