Latheefa presses PM after Nazri blames Malta speech for ex-CJ's exit
Published: Jul 11, 2025 7:05 AM
Updated: 9:19 AM
Summary
- LFL co-founder says former law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz’s claim that Tengku Maimun’s tenure was not extended for criticising the PM is “stunning and disturbing”.
- Zaid Ibrahim criticises Nazri for “missing the point” and “defending the indefensible”.
- Nazri claims that Tengku Maimun’s remarks in a Malta law conference were inappropriate, especially when Anwar was travelling the world to attract foreign investment.
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) co-founder Latheefa Koya has urged Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to respond to an explosive claim that former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat was denied an extension due to a speech she delivered in Malta.
Tengku Maimun had in her speech advocated for the removal of the prime minister’s role in judicial appointments.
“In short, it suggests that Tengku Maimun’s tenure was not extended despite her spectacular record because she had allegedly criticised the prime minister for interfering with the judiciary. If true, this becomes a very serious matter,” she told Malaysiakini.
Latheefa was reacting to former law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz’s assertion that the former chief justice did not receive an extension because she implied the prime minister had meddled in judicial appointments.
Former law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz
Citing her speech in Malta, Nazri told The Scoop that Tengku Maimun should have voiced her concerns privately.
Latheefa described Nazri’s remarks as a “stunning and disturbing admission” and stressed that it must be taken seriously, especially as it comes from a close Anwar ally and a prominent Umno figure.
She firmly rejected the notion that such reasoning could justify not extending Tengku Maimun’s service as the nation’s top judge.
“The interest of the public and judicial system should have been the priority, and not whether anyone was unhappy about her remarks on interference with the judiciary made in Malta or anywhere else.
“Let’s not forget that as head of the judiciary, it was Tengku Maimun’s duty to defend judicial independence. How can that be made the reason not to extend? If that is the reason, then it is a betrayal of the public interest.
“Now that the cat is out of the bag, Anwar cannot remain silent,” emphasised the former MACC chief commissioner.
Latheefa described Nazri’s remarks as a “stunning and disturbing admission” and stressed that it must be taken seriously, especially as it comes from a close Anwar ally and a prominent Umno figure.
She firmly rejected the notion that such reasoning could justify not extending Tengku Maimun’s service as the nation’s top judge.
“The interest of the public and judicial system should have been the priority, and not whether anyone was unhappy about her remarks on interference with the judiciary made in Malta or anywhere else.
“Let’s not forget that as head of the judiciary, it was Tengku Maimun’s duty to defend judicial independence. How can that be made the reason not to extend? If that is the reason, then it is a betrayal of the public interest.
“Now that the cat is out of the bag, Anwar cannot remain silent,” emphasised the former MACC chief commissioner.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim
Latheefa called on the prime minister to break his silence and explain to the Malaysian public why the tenure of a respected and high-performing chief justice was not renewed, leaving, in her words, a “vacuum at the top of the judiciary”.
“There was no need for an acting chief justice at all. We could have had the actual chief justice for another six months, giving time for top judicial appointments to be properly and correctly done,” she added.
‘Defending the indefensible’
In a post on X late yesterday evening, former law minister Zaid Ibrahim criticised Nazri for “missing the point” and “defending the indefensible”.
“Though not a cabinet minister, he seems unusually eager to explain why the former chief justice’s tenure was not extended despite no one asking for such an extension in the first place.
“Let’s set the record straight. Tengku Maimun never requested to stay on. The concerns raised by the legal community and many Malaysians were not about her asking to remain in office, but about the bizarre and troubling vacuum in judicial leadership that has since followed,” he added.
Zaid claimed that what has truly shocked the nation is the prime minister’s failure to act on the impending expiry of top judicial appointments.
Latheefa called on the prime minister to break his silence and explain to the Malaysian public why the tenure of a respected and high-performing chief justice was not renewed, leaving, in her words, a “vacuum at the top of the judiciary”.
“There was no need for an acting chief justice at all. We could have had the actual chief justice for another six months, giving time for top judicial appointments to be properly and correctly done,” she added.
‘Defending the indefensible’
In a post on X late yesterday evening, former law minister Zaid Ibrahim criticised Nazri for “missing the point” and “defending the indefensible”.
“Though not a cabinet minister, he seems unusually eager to explain why the former chief justice’s tenure was not extended despite no one asking for such an extension in the first place.
“Let’s set the record straight. Tengku Maimun never requested to stay on. The concerns raised by the legal community and many Malaysians were not about her asking to remain in office, but about the bizarre and troubling vacuum in judicial leadership that has since followed,” he added.
Zaid claimed that what has truly shocked the nation is the prime minister’s failure to act on the impending expiry of top judicial appointments.
Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim
“One after another, key judges are retiring with no permanent successors in place. Today, we have an acting chief justice who, in turn, must appoint an acting president of the Court of Appeal.
“This is unprecedented and dangerous. It erodes judicial authority and public confidence.
“The central question remains: Did Tengku Maimun and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) submit the names for replacement in accordance with the law? And if they did, why did the prime minister refuse to act?” he asked.
Zaid accused Nazri and others of trying to deflect attention by blaming Tengku Maimun’s remarks in Malta, rather than addressing this core issue.
“But let’s be honest - what choice did she have? She was being forced to vacate her post without a proper successor, and the world needed to know that the rule of law in Malaysia is under strain.
“This is not a question of personalities or speeches. It is a matter of legal and constitutional duty. The prime minister’s refusal to act on JAC’s recommendation, if true, is a clear transgression of the law and a blow to judicial independence.
“Nazri’s spin won’t save Anwar. The facts speak for themselves,” he added.
‘Inappropriate’ remarks
At the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference held in Malta this April, Tengku Maimun remarked that removing the prime minister’s involvement in judicial appointments could help dispel perceptions of political interference in the judiciary.
She disclosed that there have recently been proposals to amend both the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 and the Federal Constitution to eliminate the prime minister’s role in the process.
“One after another, key judges are retiring with no permanent successors in place. Today, we have an acting chief justice who, in turn, must appoint an acting president of the Court of Appeal.
“This is unprecedented and dangerous. It erodes judicial authority and public confidence.
“The central question remains: Did Tengku Maimun and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) submit the names for replacement in accordance with the law? And if they did, why did the prime minister refuse to act?” he asked.
Zaid accused Nazri and others of trying to deflect attention by blaming Tengku Maimun’s remarks in Malta, rather than addressing this core issue.
“But let’s be honest - what choice did she have? She was being forced to vacate her post without a proper successor, and the world needed to know that the rule of law in Malaysia is under strain.
“This is not a question of personalities or speeches. It is a matter of legal and constitutional duty. The prime minister’s refusal to act on JAC’s recommendation, if true, is a clear transgression of the law and a blow to judicial independence.
“Nazri’s spin won’t save Anwar. The facts speak for themselves,” he added.
‘Inappropriate’ remarks
At the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference held in Malta this April, Tengku Maimun remarked that removing the prime minister’s involvement in judicial appointments could help dispel perceptions of political interference in the judiciary.
She disclosed that there have recently been proposals to amend both the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 and the Federal Constitution to eliminate the prime minister’s role in the process.
Former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat
“Such changes, in my view, would reinforce the impartiality of the selection process, ensuring that judicial appointments remain firmly grounded on merit and free from any perception of political influence,” she said.
In response, Nazri criticised her remarks, calling them inappropriate, particularly at a time when Anwar was actively travelling to attract foreign investment.
The former minister also rejected the notion that Tengku Maimun was speaking in general terms and not specifically about Anwar.
“You are the sitting chief justice. Anwar is the sitting prime minister. So you must be referring to him,” he contended.
He pointed out that Tengku Maimun had previously spoken about the importance of harmonious relations among the three branches of government: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.
Nazri said maintaining a constructive and well-balanced relationship between the judiciary and the other arms of government is vital to upholding judicial independence, while also honouring Parliament’s democratic mandate.
He further noted that Tengku Maimun herself had affirmed that there is no contest for supremacy among the branches and that, in Malaysia, the Constitution reigns supreme.
“She should take a leaf from her own speech,” he added.
“Such changes, in my view, would reinforce the impartiality of the selection process, ensuring that judicial appointments remain firmly grounded on merit and free from any perception of political influence,” she said.
In response, Nazri criticised her remarks, calling them inappropriate, particularly at a time when Anwar was actively travelling to attract foreign investment.
The former minister also rejected the notion that Tengku Maimun was speaking in general terms and not specifically about Anwar.
“You are the sitting chief justice. Anwar is the sitting prime minister. So you must be referring to him,” he contended.
He pointed out that Tengku Maimun had previously spoken about the importance of harmonious relations among the three branches of government: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.
Nazri said maintaining a constructive and well-balanced relationship between the judiciary and the other arms of government is vital to upholding judicial independence, while also honouring Parliament’s democratic mandate.
He further noted that Tengku Maimun herself had affirmed that there is no contest for supremacy among the branches and that, in Malaysia, the Constitution reigns supreme.
“She should take a leaf from her own speech,” he added.
***
kt comments:
There is this seeming bizarre and incessant obsession about extending the service contract of then then-CJ Tengku Maimum - as the Melayu would put it "Mati-Mati pun mesti sambung kontrack CJ".
Why, if not to cari pasal and kacau-ganggu DSAI!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment