This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on July 28, 2025 - August 3, 2025
The recent appointments of key positions in the judiciary drew attention for the many things that were allegedly not the norm. The main one was the delay in appointing the new chief justice and the new president of the Court of Appeal.
The appointments finally came after a meeting of the Conference of Rulers in mid-July.
Court of Appeal judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, who ranks far lower than others in terms of seniority in the judiciary, was appointed chief justice, while Federal Court judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais was named as president of the Court of Appeal.
Wan Ahmad Farid joined the judiciary service in 2015 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal in December last year.
After serving in the Court of Appeal circuit for less than a year, he will now preside over the entire judiciary, which includes the panel of Federal Court judges that have spent more years on the bench.
Seniority, experience and the delivery of critical judgments are important qualities for key appointments in the judiciary.
Wan Ahmad Farid may not be as experienced as more senior Federal Court judges, but the criteria for the role of chief justice is more than just experience and seniority.
The overriding matter is whether he will fulfil his role as chief justice with integrity and honesty — whether he will add credibility to the judiciary and show that it is independent of any interference from the executive.
That is the bottom line. Ultimately, it all depends on the person, and not seniority or experience on the bench. So far, the response from the legal fraternity is that Wan Ahmad Farid is a good choice. Hopefully, he will live up to expectations.
This principle applies not only to the judiciary. It is pertinent to all key appointments in the government, although it is, arguably, more important in the judiciary than elsewhere.
The judiciary is one the three branches of our democratic system, the other two being parliament and the executive. Its role is to interpret the laws of the country and to adjudicate disputes that come before it, including those involving the executive.
In the 1980s, judges made decisions that were not in favour of the executive, leading to the 1988 judicial crisis when its head (then called lord president) Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas was removed along with several Supreme Court (now called Federal Court) judges.
The judiciary does not have money to give away or platforms to make speeches to sway public opinion. Their only platform is through judgments and, occasionally, the chief justice makes speeches with a veiled message at formal events.
The worst that can happen in Malaysia is the judiciary becomes a rubber stamp of the executive.
Before the 2018 general elections, key appointees to the judiciary and other government institutions were persons who were viewed as pliant to the dominant party, Umno, and then prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
The appointees subsequently resigned after the change in government in 2018. The string of resignations also included that of the then chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal — a move that was taken by the Malaysian Bar as being acknowledgement that the extension of their appointments (which was also a contentious issue) was in breach of the Federal Constitution.
The appointment of Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat as chief justice in 2019 led to what many in the legal fraternity have described as “the golden years”, when the judiciary gained respect not just at home but internationally as well.
The Madani government has come under criticism for the lack of institutional reforms that were promised. Among them is the separation of the roles in the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), where the prosecution is to be headed by a different person and the attorney general’s function is restricted to advising and representing the government on legal matters.
Other key reforms that have yet to happen are having the appointments in critical institutions vetted by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Major Public Appointments, and placing the administration of the Bantuan Sara Hidup under a statutory body headed by an independent person to prevent political misuse.
But the major reforms will only be meaningful if the appointees are people of high integrity and display the ability to discharge their duties with honesty. It’s all about the person; the other qualities are secondary.
For instance, the crux of the reforms in the AGC is breaking up the department and appointing two key persons — one as attorney general and another as head of prosecution. But the head of prosecution needs to assert his or her authority as someone who would not accede to or be compromised by the demands of the executive.
The appointee has to be an honest person who will not be swayed by considerations other than the rule of law in a decision to prosecute. If the person does not show such qualities, there really is no use in breaking up the AGC.
The same goes for key figures such as the chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the chairman of the Election Commission of Malaysia (EC).
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has come under fire from even his own party leaders for extending the contract of MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki for another year. Anwar has defended his move by stating that the extension was made because he could not find a replacement with the same resolve as Azam to combat corruption.
The decision to reappoint Azam unilaterally brings to mind the appointment of Latheefa Koya as MACC chief commissioner in June 2019. She was appointed by the then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who bypassed the cabinet and the PSC on Major Public Appointments that was headed by William Leong, the member of parliament for Selayang.
The PSC on Major Public Appointments was one of the key reform initiatives of the Pakatan Harapan government then, aimed at minimising the influence of the prime minister in major appointments. But the committee was not empowered by the law.
As such, although Latheefa appeared before the PSC after her appointment, it was moot.
Nowadays, nobody talks about the PSC on Major Public Appointments. All key appointments come from Putrajaya.
Getting good people to lead key institutions is difficult. It is even more difficult to retain a person who has demonstrated the ability to serve with integrity and without being compromised because the pressure at the top is great.
However, a person who is honest and has integrity learns to handle pressure along the way.
Having said that, Malaysia is not short of capable candidates who are prepared to serve the government of the day. The government must, however, be prepared to cast the net wide. The candidates should also be grilled by the PSC before even being appointed because it lends credibility and, to some extent, takes the political pressure off the individual.
It is not impossible to appoint good people to key positions. However, it can happen only if there is a resolve from the prime minister himself.
M Shanmugam ([email protected]) is a contributing editor at The Edge
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.