Tuesday, 15 July 2025 05:29PM MYT
Former Bar President Calls to Amend JAC Act to Give Meaningful Interpretation
The government should amend the Constitution to give the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 greater legal weight, said former Malaysian Bar Council president. (File pic)
Untuk berita terkini Sinar Harian, ikuti di Telegram dan TikTok kami
KUALA LUMPUR: The government should amend the Constitution to give the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 greater legal weight in the appointment of judges, says former Malaysian Bar Council president Salim Bashir.
He said while the JAC Act 2009 had set out the procedural framework for judicial selections and recommendations, it should be given a “meaningful interpretation”.
“JAC Act 2009 is a federal law enacted under legislative power by virtue of Article 132(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.
“Though it sets out a procedural framework for selections of judges and recommendations, it should be given a meaningful interpretation that its existence is to complement the constitutional discretion bestowed under Article 122B(1) to the prime minister for recommendations and His Majesty for the appointment of judges.
“Otherwise, it will certainly render the law redundant, repugnant to its objective and stamp absurdity to the working of rule of law and independence of judiciary,” he said.
Yesterday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said that the JAC Act was not a binding provision in the appointment of judges.
She said that such appointments were ultimately governed by Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, which empowered the prime minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Conference of Rulers.
She added that the JAC’s role was to screen, assess and recommend names of judicial candidates, but its recommendations were not final or binding.
Salim said if the government believes that the JAC Act did not provide any binding effect on the appointment of judges, then it should move to amend the Constitution.
“Her (Azalina) statement has given impetus for legislative changes, and the government should consider amending the Constitution to give effect to the JAC Act on the appointment of judges. I am sure legislative members will render their support.”
Meanwhile, criminal lawyer Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent agreed with Azalina’s constitutional interpretation, but cautioned against overlooking the JAC’s intended role.
“Yes, this is correct. Under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, the prime minister retains full authority to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments. The JAC can recommend, but not decide.
“Despite lacking binding authority, the JAC serves important functions. It provides professional vetting of candidates, ensures some degree of transparency in appointments and maintains records of the selection process.
“Even though its recommendations are not binding, the JAC acts as an important institutional check against arbitrary or political appointments.”
Geethan said the JAC’s primary task was to review potential judges based on their experience, skills and professional conduct.
“They interview candidates and then suggest names to the prime minister. Although the JAC thoroughly documents the selection process, it has no authority to compel the prime minister to accept its recommendations or to require any explanation if they are disregarded.
“In essence, the JAC handles the groundwork but holds no real influence over whether its suggestions are acted upon.”
He added that while Azalina’s remarks were technically accurate, they failed to address the broader issue of judicial independence.
“While Azalina’s remarks are technically accurate regarding the constitutional framework, they overlook the original intent behind creating the JAC to reduce political influence in judicial appointments.
“Her statement reflects the current legal reality but fails to address whether this system adequately protects.”