COMMENT | Judicial appointments: Empower Dewan Rakyat, not one man

COMMENT | It is time to amend the Federal Constitution so that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acts on the advice of Parliament, rather than solely on the advice of the prime minister.

Such an immense power, particularly the power to influence judicial appointments, is far too great to be concentrated in the hands of a single individual.

This concern becomes even more pressing in the current political context, where Anwar Ibrahim holds the office of prime minister.

Malaysia has undergone vast political and institutional changes since its independence, yet the enduring concentration of executive power rooted in colonial frameworks continues to raise red flags.

The time has come to confront this legacy and reimagine our constitutional structure to reflect democratic maturity and accountability.

We must ask ourselves: Is this truly the nation we want to entrust to our future generations? A nation where one man, regardless of his title or political alignment, has unchecked influence over the very system meant to keep him in check?

Lopsided arrangement

Although the prime minister, Dewan Rakyat speaker, and the chief justice each lead the executive, legislature, and judiciary, respectively, it is only the prime minister who holds the authority to advise the king on appointments to all three pillars.

This lopsided arrangement undermines the independence of the very institutions designed to act as checks and balances.

The prime minister's role in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments creates a dangerous paradox where the executive holds sway over the very judges tasked with interpreting the law and upholding justice.

This undermines public confidence and compromises the impartiality of the judiciary.

In modern governance, the separation of powers must be more than symbolic; it must be substantive and enforceable.

Core ideals of democracy

Judicial appointments must be free from executive dominance. If any form of external influence is necessary, let it come not from the Prime Minister’s Office, but from Parliament; a body of 222 elected representatives, each accountable to their constituents.

Such a mechanism is inherently more democratic, more transparent, and more consistent with the principles of constitutional supremacy.

Let Parliament, not the executive, scrutinise, vet, and advise the king on the appointment of judges. In doing so, we align ourselves with the core ideals of democracy: collective wisdom, public deliberation, and institutional independence.

This reform is not an attack on the monarchy nor on the executive branch, but a necessary recalibration to restore balance and public trust in our legal institutions.

It is only right that those entrusted with interpreting and safeguarding our Federal Constitution are selected through a process grounded in openness, merit, and democratic legitimacy.

End the prime minister’s grip on judicial appointments. Empower Parliament to nominate, debate, and shortlist candidates for the judiciary so that the administration of justice reflects the will of the people, not the will of one man, ie the prime minister.

SIDDIQ AZANI is a lawyer who actively exercises his constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression on X via the handle @Solisidtor.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

As judges exit, M'sian Bar tells govt to learn from 1988 judiciary saga

'Defend judiciary' urges PM to seek tribunal on top judge allegations

COMMENT | Call for judges' tenure extension nothing to do with lobby

COMMENT | Rule of law and the struggle for judicial independence