Thomas wanted Dr M to do his bidding in appointing judges, says report
Tommy Thomas sought the intervention of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in appointing judges, according to a government report.
PETALING JAYA: Tommy Thomas, while attorney-general (AG), had wanted Dr Mahathir Mohamad “to do his bidding in a manner contrary to the law” in appointing three lawyers as Court of Appeal judges, according to a government report.
A special task force that investigated Thomas’ memoir said in its report that he had “powerful vested interests” in the appointment of judges.
The findings of the task force were declassified and published today by the legal affairs division of the Prime Minister’s Department.
The task force said Thomas had written that judges at the Court of Appeal were weak in commercial law, and that such expertise could only be gained by being in active legal practice.
Thomas said he proposed to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat that three lawyers in private practice “with strong commercial law background” be appointed straight to the Court of Appeal.
Tengku Maimun had initially stated her support but later said the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) required that a judge in a superior court must first serve as a judicial commissioner and then as a High Court judge.
“The only solution was for me to seek the agreement of the prime minister (Mahathir) to make the three appointments,” Thomas wrote in his book.
The task force said Thomas’ discussion with the chief justice about the appointments “straight to the Court of Appeal” had evidenced the then AG’s “powerful vested interests” in the appointments of judges.
It added that Thomas had been applying “partisan pressure” on Tengku Maimun in an attempt at influencing the appointment of Court of Appeal judges.
“It is evident … that Thomas had taken a personal interest in the appointment of judges, including submitting three names of members of the Bar for the direct appointment to the Court of Appeal,” the report said.
As the AG then, Thomas “should not have discussed and/or get involved in any matter concerning the appointment of judges at all”, the task force said, as such appointments were essentially the statutory function of the JAC.
“The chief justice had rightly, after having consulted the JAC, decided not to entertain Thomas’ proposal,” the task force said.
The task force added that Thomas’ move to approach Mahathir was an “attempt to use political or executive influence” to see the proposed appointments come to pass.
It said the then AG had failed in his duty to advise the then prime minister that he had no authority to select candidates for appointments to the judiciary.
“Instead, he wanted the prime minister to do his bidding in a manner contrary to the law pertaining to the selection and appointment of judges.”
It added that the Bar Council declined to respond when asked if it had written to Tengku Maimun about the alleged weakness in the Court of Appeal. There was also seemingly no consultation between Thomas and the Bar on the matter.
Thomas’ book “My Story: Justice in the Wilderness” was published in January last year.
PETALING JAYA: Tommy Thomas, while attorney-general (AG), had wanted Dr Mahathir Mohamad “to do his bidding in a manner contrary to the law” in appointing three lawyers as Court of Appeal judges, according to a government report.
A special task force that investigated Thomas’ memoir said in its report that he had “powerful vested interests” in the appointment of judges.
The findings of the task force were declassified and published today by the legal affairs division of the Prime Minister’s Department.
The task force said Thomas had written that judges at the Court of Appeal were weak in commercial law, and that such expertise could only be gained by being in active legal practice.
Thomas said he proposed to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat that three lawyers in private practice “with strong commercial law background” be appointed straight to the Court of Appeal.
Tengku Maimun had initially stated her support but later said the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) required that a judge in a superior court must first serve as a judicial commissioner and then as a High Court judge.
“The only solution was for me to seek the agreement of the prime minister (Mahathir) to make the three appointments,” Thomas wrote in his book.
The task force said Thomas’ discussion with the chief justice about the appointments “straight to the Court of Appeal” had evidenced the then AG’s “powerful vested interests” in the appointments of judges.
It added that Thomas had been applying “partisan pressure” on Tengku Maimun in an attempt at influencing the appointment of Court of Appeal judges.
“It is evident … that Thomas had taken a personal interest in the appointment of judges, including submitting three names of members of the Bar for the direct appointment to the Court of Appeal,” the report said.
As the AG then, Thomas “should not have discussed and/or get involved in any matter concerning the appointment of judges at all”, the task force said, as such appointments were essentially the statutory function of the JAC.
“The chief justice had rightly, after having consulted the JAC, decided not to entertain Thomas’ proposal,” the task force said.
The task force added that Thomas’ move to approach Mahathir was an “attempt to use political or executive influence” to see the proposed appointments come to pass.
It said the then AG had failed in his duty to advise the then prime minister that he had no authority to select candidates for appointments to the judiciary.
“Instead, he wanted the prime minister to do his bidding in a manner contrary to the law pertaining to the selection and appointment of judges.”
It added that the Bar Council declined to respond when asked if it had written to Tengku Maimun about the alleged weakness in the Court of Appeal. There was also seemingly no consultation between Thomas and the Bar on the matter.
Thomas’ book “My Story: Justice in the Wilderness” was published in January last year.
*********
JAC didn’t name 3 for top judge’s posts, says report
The appointments of (from left) Richard Malanjum, Ahmad Maarop and David Wong were not made on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission, says a government report.
PETALING JAYA: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) did not recommend appointing Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop as Court of Appeal president, and David Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak in July 2018, says a government report.
A special task force noted that then attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas and then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had agreed on the trio’s appointments, as well as Zaharah Ibrahim as chief judge of Malaya, according to the former AG’s memoir.
This followed the resignation of Raus Sharif as chief justice (CJ) and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as Court of Appeal president in June 2018.
In its declassified report, the task force pointed out that the JAC had recommended appointing Azahar Mohamed, the current Chief Judge of Malaya, as CJ instead of Malanjum.
The JAC had also suggested appointing Rohana Yusuf as Court of Appeal president, the post she holds now, and Abdul Rahman Sebli as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
“If the prime minister disagreed with this selection, he should have requested more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the task force that he had made such a request,” the task force said.
“Instead, from the report of the Cabinet, Constitution and Intergovernmental Relations Division, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the King under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between (Mahathir) and (Thomas).”
Breach of the Federal Constitution
The task force also said Mahathir breached the Federal Constitution in appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, as Mahathir had failed to consult the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak beforehand as required by the Federal Constitution.
The committee added that this was a “glaring omission” when the then Sabah and Sarawak chief ministers had confirmed being consulted on Abang Iskandar Hashim’s appointment to the same post in 2019.
“The failure to consult the two chief ministers on Wong’s appointment as Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak is a violation of the constitution which, clearly, Thomas as the AG then had not advised the prime minister to comply with,” it said.
Report calls for restriction on PM’s role
The task force suggested amending the JAC Act to ban the prime minister from advising the King to appoint anyone to judicial offices in the superior courts, if the appointee was not selected by the JAC.
It also proposed that the four eminent persons in the JAC should be appointed by the King instead of the prime minister in order to ensure continued judicial independence.
The JAC comprises nine members – four top judicial administrators led by the chief justice, as well as a senior Federal Court judge and four other eminent persons, who are currently appointed by the prime minister.
PETALING JAYA: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) did not recommend appointing Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop as Court of Appeal president, and David Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak in July 2018, says a government report.
A special task force noted that then attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas and then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had agreed on the trio’s appointments, as well as Zaharah Ibrahim as chief judge of Malaya, according to the former AG’s memoir.
This followed the resignation of Raus Sharif as chief justice (CJ) and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as Court of Appeal president in June 2018.
In its declassified report, the task force pointed out that the JAC had recommended appointing Azahar Mohamed, the current Chief Judge of Malaya, as CJ instead of Malanjum.
The JAC had also suggested appointing Rohana Yusuf as Court of Appeal president, the post she holds now, and Abdul Rahman Sebli as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
“If the prime minister disagreed with this selection, he should have requested more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the task force that he had made such a request,” the task force said.
“Instead, from the report of the Cabinet, Constitution and Intergovernmental Relations Division, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the King under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between (Mahathir) and (Thomas).”
Breach of the Federal Constitution
The task force also said Mahathir breached the Federal Constitution in appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, as Mahathir had failed to consult the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak beforehand as required by the Federal Constitution.
The committee added that this was a “glaring omission” when the then Sabah and Sarawak chief ministers had confirmed being consulted on Abang Iskandar Hashim’s appointment to the same post in 2019.
“The failure to consult the two chief ministers on Wong’s appointment as Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak is a violation of the constitution which, clearly, Thomas as the AG then had not advised the prime minister to comply with,” it said.
Report calls for restriction on PM’s role
The task force suggested amending the JAC Act to ban the prime minister from advising the King to appoint anyone to judicial offices in the superior courts, if the appointee was not selected by the JAC.
It also proposed that the four eminent persons in the JAC should be appointed by the King instead of the prime minister in order to ensure continued judicial independence.
The JAC comprises nine members – four top judicial administrators led by the chief justice, as well as a senior Federal Court judge and four other eminent persons, who are currently appointed by the prime minister.
No comments:
Post a Comment