Lawyer files application to suspend JAC's activities
Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim wants the JAC to suspend its activities until the conclusion of his main suit.
KUALA LUMPUR : A lawyer has filed an application to compel the Judicial Appointments Commission to suspend its activities of recommending judges for elevation and to hold administrative positions pending the outcome of a legal suit.
However, Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim said in his application filed in the High Court here today the prime minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on judicial appointments without being bound or subject to the recommendations of the JAC.
Syed Amir, who is challenging the constitutionality of the JAC Act 2009, said the prime minister could perform that function under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
Article 122B states that judges and administrative position holders shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the prime minister's advice, after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.
He said he did not intend to suspend or paralyse judicial appointments, or obstruct the exercise of constitutional functions by the prime minister or the king.
'Rather, this application is only intended to prevent any further reliance or implementation of the challenged legal framework pending the final decision of the court,' he said.
Syed Amir told FMT that unsealed copies of the stay application have been served on the defendants – the government and the JAC, and the Bar Council, which is allowed to come in as an intervener.
In his main suit filed last month, Syed Amir contends that the powers conferred on the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution.
He is seeking a mandamus order compelling the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the constitution.
He claims the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which states that the written constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Under the JAC Act, the commission proposes the nomination of judges to the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court.
It also recommends nominees for the posts of chief justice, Court of Appeal president, chief judge of Malaya, and chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak as and when they fall vacant.
Justice Amarjeet Singh has fixed July 16 to hear the main suit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
3 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Legal quagmire when a fatwa does not apply to companies but a ruling does — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 21 — According to Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, law includes written law, which in turn comprises federal law and state law. Federal law includes legislation made by Parliament (Acts), while state law consists of legislation enacted by the State Legislative Assemblies (Enactments or Ordinances). A fatwa is both federal and state law. It is federal law when issued under the Administration of Islamic Law Act, and it is state law when made under the respective Enactments or Ordinances of each state — but law nonetheless. A fatwa (plural: fatawa) in Islamic jurisprudence is a formal ruling or interpretation on a point of Islamic law, issued by a qualified legal scholar (mufti) in response to a specific question posed by an individual (mustafti). The ruling is a practical application of Islamic law to a particular issue and is given after the mufti has engaged in ijtihad to reach a legal conclusion. Ijtihad refers to the process of striving to derive legal rulings from the primary sources of Islamic law — the Quran and the Sunnah — when a clear and direct ruling is not available. It involves a comprehensive understanding of Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and the ability to apply it to new or emerging issues. The relationship between ijtihad and fatwa is this: ijtihad is the methodology; fatwa is the product. A mufti uses ijtihad to formulate a legal conclusion, which is then issued as a fatwa. Although considered authoritative, fatwas are generally not binding and typically serve as advisory opinions. Under Malaysian law (Acts, Enactments or Ordinances), a fatwa is defined as a ruling on any unsettled or controversial question related to Islamic law. No statement made by a mufti shall be deemed a fatwa unless and until it is published in the Gazette. Once published, a fatwa is binding on every Muslim resident in the relevant territory or state as a dictate of their religion, and it becomes their religious duty to observe and uphold the fatwa — unless Islamic law allows personal deviation in matters of belief, observance or opinion. A fatwa is also recognised by the Shariah courts as authoritative on all matters addressed within it. (See, for example, Section 34 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.) By definition, a Muslim is a person who professes the religion of Islam. A person, in turn, includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporated. (See Section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.) Federal law includes legislation made by Parliament, while state law consists of legislation enacted by the State Legislative Assemblies. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Another product of ijtihad is what is otherwise referred to as a ruling under the law. Take, for example, the rulings issued by the Shariah Advisory Council (SAC) of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). The SAC was established in May 1997 as the highest Shariah authority for Islamic financial institutions in Malaysia. Its roles and functions as the authoritative body for the ascertainment of Islamic law in the context of Islamic finance — which is supervised and regulated by BNM — were reinforced with the enactment of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 (CBA). (See Sections 51 and 52 of the CBA.) The SAC plays a pivotal role in ensuring the consistent application of Shariah rulings across Islamic financial institutions. These rulings serve as the primary reference to ensure end-to-end Shariah compliance in the structuring and implementation of financial products and activities. Crucially, Section 57 of the CBA makes these rulings binding on Islamic financial institutions. Furthermore, Section 58 of the CBA provides that SAC rulings 'shall prevail' over any ruling made by a Shariah body or committee of an Islamic financial institution. And so we arrive at this paradox: following the majority decision of the Federal Court in the Sisters in Islam Forum fatwa case, one product of ijtihad (a fatwa) does not bind companies, but another (a ruling) does. The majority reasoned that only a natural person can profess the religion of Islam. However, the judgment did not address the definition of 'person' under Section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. (As noted above, 'person' includes corporate entities.) We respect the decision of the majority. But after years of legal proceedings, it is humbly submitted that we are not yet out of a legal quagmire. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
A-GC denies flawed prosecution in Najib's second SRC case
KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has dismissed as baseless allegations that it carried out a 'flawed prosecution' in the second SRC International Sdn Bhd case involving Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. In a statement, the AGC reiterated its firm commitment to upholding the rule of law and stated that it would continue to fulfill its responsibilities under the Federal Constitution with integrity, fairness and respect for the judicial process. However, the AGC acknowledged the decision by High Court Judge K Muniandy to grant Najib a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on three charges of money laundering involving RM27 million in funds from the company. 'The case was registered in the High Court on Feb 7, 2019, and scheduled for trial on five occasions: June 2020, July to August 2021, March to April 2022, September 2024 and April to May 2025. 'However, all trial dates were postponed due to the Movement Control Order caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, requests by the defence, or applications by the prosecution itself,' the statement read. According to the statement, the prosecution's requests for postponement were due to the ongoing trial of the first SRC case, which proceeded at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court until its completion on March 31, 2023. At the same time, the trial proceedings for the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case had also begun while the first SRC case was still ongoing. 'Both cases involved overlapping material documents required for the second SRC trial. 'As these documents were critical to the second SRC case, the prosecution had no choice but to wait until they were available, which was until the 1MDB trial proceedings were completed. 'It must be emphasised that the material documents are available but are currently being used as evidence in the ongoing 1MDB trial,' the AGC said. The AGC further stated that the prosecution had requested additional time to gather all relevant material documents to be presented as evidence in the second SRC trial. 'This delay was not intentional but was to ensure the integrity of the documents as evidence in the trial is preserved,' the statement read. Earlier today, Judge Muniandy, in granting Najib a DNAA on the three charges, stated that the case had been pending for six years since 2019, without any witness testimony being presented, having faced multiple postponements, which indicated that the prosecution was not ready to proceed with the trial. On Feb 3, 2019, Najib claimed trial to three charges of money laundering by accepting illegal proceeds amounting to RM27 million through his three AmPrivate Banking accounts at AmIslamic Bank Berhad, AmBank Group Building, Jalan Raja Chulan on July 8, 2014. The former Pekan MP was charged under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which is punishable by a maximum fine of RM5 million or imprisonment of up to five years, or both upon conviction. Najib is currently serving a jail term in Kajang Prison for the misappropriation of RM42 million in the SRC International funds case. On Sept 2, 2022, he filed a petition for a royal pardon, which led to the Pardons Board halving his jail term from 12 to six years and reducing the fine from RM210 million to RM50 million on Jan 29, 2024.
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
AGC rejects claims of ‘flawed prosecution' after Najib's DNAA in second SRC case
KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has dismissed as baseless allegations that it carried out a 'flawed prosecution' in the second SRC International Sdn Bhd case involving Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. In a statement, the AGC reiterated its firm commitment to upholding the rule of law and stated that it would continue to fulfill its responsibilities under the Federal Constitution with integrity, fairness and respect for the judicial process. However, the AGC acknowledged the decision by High Court Judge K Muniandy to grant Najib a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on three charges of money laundering involving RM27 million in funds from the company. 'The case was registered in the High Court on Feb 7, 2019, and scheduled for trial on five occasions: June 2020, July to August 2021, March to April 2022, September 2024 and April to May 2025. 'However, all trial dates were postponed due to the Movement Control Order caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, requests by the defence, or applications by the prosecution itself,' the statement read. According to the statement, the prosecution's requests for postponement were due to the ongoing trial of the first SRC case, which proceeded at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court until its completion on March 31, 2023. At the same time, the trial proceedings for the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case had also begun while the first SRC case was still ongoing. 'Both cases involved overlapping material documents required for the second SRC trial. 'As these documents were critical to the second SRC case, the prosecution had no choice but to wait until they were available, which was until the 1MDB trial proceedings were completed. 'It must be emphasised that the material documents are available but are currently being used as evidence in the ongoing 1MDB trial,' the AGC said. The AGC further stated that the prosecution had requested additional time to gather all relevant material documents to be presented as evidence in the second SRC trial. 'This delay was not intentional but was to ensure the integrity of the documents as evidence in the trial is preserved,' the statement read. Earlier today, Judge Muniandy, in granting Najib a DNAA on the three charges, stated that the case had been pending for six years since 2019, without any witness testimony being presented, having faced multiple postponements, which indicated that the prosecution was not ready to proceed with the trial. On Feb 3, 2019, Najib claimed trial to three charges of money laundering by accepting illegal proceeds amounting to RM27 million through his three AmPrivate Banking accounts at AmIslamic Bank Berhad, AmBank Group Building, Jalan Raja Chulan on July 8, 2014. The former Pekan MP was charged under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, which is punishable by a maximum fine of RM5 million or imprisonment of up to five years, or both upon conviction. Najib is currently serving a jail term in Kajang Prison for the misappropriation of RM42 million in the SRC International funds case. On Sept 2, 2022, he filed a petition for a royal pardon, which led to the Pardons Board halving his jail term from 12 to six years and reducing the fine from RM210 million to RM50 million on Jan 29, 2024.
