A reasonable call for judicial continuity, not retribution

Murray Hunter


A reasonable call for judicial continuity, not retribution

P Ramasamy
Jun 27, 2025



Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat is expected to retire on July 2, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim on July 1, and senior Federal Court judge Nallini Pathmanathan on Aug 22. Picture FMT



This is in reference to the letter published in Free Malaysia Today on June 26, 2025.

The writer—identified as a lawyer and a member of PKR—appears to take umbrage with those advocating for the extension of service for three senior judges who are due to retire in a matter of days.

It must be stressed that those supporting the extension are not engaging in anything extraordinary. They are simply urging the government—particularly Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim—to consider extending the services of these judges based on merit, judicial experience, and expertise.

Let us not forget that one of them is the current Chief Justice of Malaysia, widely regarded as a symbol of integrity and judicial independence. The other two judges are equally distinguished in terms of their experience, impartiality, and dedication to the rule of law.

The request for extension is grounded in a sincere concern for preserving the independence and integrity of the judiciary. It should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of the government or an attempt to exert undue pressure on the prime minister.

There is no suggestion that the government’s hesitancy to grant extensions is rooted in retribution for past decisions by these judges. The call for extension is not based on entitlement, but rather a principled plea to retain judicial talent and experience for the good of the nation.

Judicial talent of this calibre is not easily replaceable. Until the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) becomes the sole authority in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments, the prime minister holds significant influence in the process.

Extending the service of these senior judges does not preclude the appointment of younger judicial officers. On the contrary, a healthy balance of experience and new energy would contribute to a more dynamic, effective, and independent judiciary.

There are no sinister motives in the call for extension. Nor are the proponents condemning the government. Their appeal is rooted in a desire to uphold and strengthen the judiciary—an institution that serves as a cornerstone of democracy.