KUALA LUMPUR – The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) today clarified that judicial appointments, including top posts such as the chief justice and Court of Appeal president, follow processes outlined in the Federal Constitution and must be handled in an orderly and proper manner.
In a statement, the AGC said the process involves multiple considerations, including consultation requirements and the prime minister’s constitutional duty to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, not merely act as a conduit for recommendations.
The AGC also confirmed that the king had consented to the appointment of several judges last month, pending the completion of formalities.
The statement came in response to Pandan MP Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli and several others who urged the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry and a Parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise judicial appointments. The AGC stressed that while public confidence is important, the independence of the judiciary must be preserved.
Citing Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, the AGC said judicial appointments are made by the King on the advice of the prime minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers. While the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 guides candidate selection, the constitutional authority to advise the King rests solely with the Prime Minister.
Addressing concerns over a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting allegedly convened without sufficient notice, the AGC said the JAC may regulate its own procedures. Urgent meetings on short notice are allowed if all members agree, and such procedural matters do not invalidate decisions unless there is clear evidence of bad faith or prejudice.
The AGC also addressed serious allegations that a Federal Court judge influenced case outcomes or judge transfers, saying such claims are speculative at this point. JAC deliberations are confidential and protected by law, and these claims do not equate to proven misconduct.
Comparisons to the 2007 VK Lingam case were dismissed as premature and unwarranted. That case involved concrete evidence of interference, unlike the current situation, which the AGC said involves only unproven allegations and procedural questions.
While acknowledging Parliament’s power to investigate institutional governance, the AGC warned against politicising the constitutional roles of the king and prime minister. It stressed that any intervention must be guided by credible evidence and constitutional prudence.
It urged all parties to refrain from speculation and public pressure campaigns, warning that timing discrepancies or procedural concerns do not constitute a constitutional crisis. – July 8, 2025