When Silence Threatens the Bench: The End of Tengku Maimun’s Tenure

charismamovement
Jul 4
4 min read

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Chief Justice of Malaysia

On July 3, Malaysia witnessed the retirement of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the first woman to ascend to the nation’s highest judicial office. Her departure marks not only the end of a historic tenure but also the beginning of an uncertain transition.

Ordinarily, such moments would follow a well-established protocol. Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution allows judges of the Federal Court to remain in office until the age of 66, with a possible six-month extension granted by the King. This extension, although discretionary, has traditionally been treated as a routine administrative matter. Yet, as Tengku Maimun’s final day approaches, no extension has been granted, no successor has been announced, and no formal transition has been signalled. The lack of clarity surrounding this transition raises serious concerns about due process and transparency of judicial appointments.

This silence is particularly jarring given the concurrent retirement timelines of two other senior judges: the Court of Appeal President Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, who is due to retire just one day after Tengku Maimun; and Federal Court Judge Nallini Pathmanathan, who is expected to step down in August. Only the Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Mohammed Hashim has received a formal extension.

The resulting vacuum at the judiciary’s apex—unprecedented in Malaysian legal history—has sparked intense concern among the legal community, civil society, and political observers. The absence of clarity has led to speculation, undermining institutional confidence and casting doubt over the commitment to due process.

To understand why this moment matters, one must consider Tengku Maimun’s legacy. Her judicial career has been defined by a firm adherence to the rule of law. Most notably, she played a central role in the prosecution and conviction of former prime minister Najib Razak in the SRC International corruption case, one of the most consequential cases in Malaysian legal history. Her leadership in these high-stakes proceedings demonstrated an unwavering dedication to judicial independence and public accountability, earning her both praise and scrutiny. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in comments made on June 30, maintained that judicial tenure extensions are not automatic and must follow the procedure involving the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and consultation with the Conference of Rulers. Anwar also cautioned against politicising judicial appointments, warning that pressure to extend or terminate specific judges’ service could compromise institutional neutrality. Yet, critics argue that the real threat to judicial independence lies in the current opacity and deviation from convention.

Compounding these concerns is the emergence of Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, a recently appointed Federal Court judge and former Attorney General, as a possible successor to Tengku Maimun. His appointment, made on Anwar’s advice, and his perceived comparatively junior status have prompted accusations of political manoeuvring. Critics point out that Anwar remains entangled in an unresolved civil case, raising legitimate questions about the propriety of his involvement in appointing judges. Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has publicly warned against bypassing the seniority convention, cautioning that such actions could damage judicial morale and erode the separation of powers.

The legal fraternity has not remained silent. The Malaysian Bar, through its president Ezri Abdul Wahab, issued a statement on June 30 expressing concern over the lack of transparency. While refraining from supporting or opposing any individual appointment, the Bar stressed that the government’s failure to communicate a clear succession plan has bred unnecessary speculation and weakened public trust. The Bar’s position was echoed by legal experts and politicians across the spectrum, all of whom stressed the importance of maintaining public confidence through timely and transparent decision-making.

Political figures have also weighed in. Ramkarpal Singh of the DAP called for the extension of tenures for all three outgoing judges, citing institutional reform and the need for continuity in judicial leadership. Rafizi Ramli warned that allowing such key vacancies to remain unaddressed could cripple the Federal Court’s functionality and fuel perceptions of political favouritism. Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim delivered one of the most forceful critiques, suggesting that the Prime Minister may be more comfortable appointing a compliant chief justice and highlighting the dangers of opaque decision-making shrouded by secrecy laws like the Official Secrets Act.

In defence of the current silence, the government emphasises that it is preserving judicial independence. Yet independence is not achieved through silence and ambiguity. It requires clear processes, consistent adherence to precedent, and accountability to the public. In the absence of communication, speculation is inevitable, and trust deteriorates. The government’s failure to act or explain its inaction risks undermining the very institutional integrity it claims to protect.

The judicial transition underway is more than a personnel change, but a test of Malaysia’s constitutional maturity and democratic resolve. A timely and transparent resolution, whether in the form of extensions or new appointments in line with the JAC’s recommendations, remains imperative. Anything less than decisive, principled leadership threatens to entangle the judiciary in a dangerous web of political ambiguity and public distrust.

By,

Shermin Leow,

Static Journalist,

Charisma Movement 2025