Appointment Procedure for the Chief Justice 

The appointment of the Chief Justice of Malaysia is governed by two statutes: Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (“JACA 2009”). The standard procedure for appointment for appointment of a Chief Justice is as follows: 

1. Selection and recommendation by the Judicial Appointments Commission: In accordance with Sections 22 – 24 of the JACA 2009, the Judicial Appointments Commission (“JAC”) shall select candidates for the role of Chief Justice, having regard to criteria including integrity, objectivity, decisiveness, industriousness, physical health and mental health. 
2. Report on Recommendation to Prime Minister: Pursuant to Section 26 of the JACA 2009, following their selection, the JAC shall submit a report on their recommendation to the Prime Minister, stating the selected candidates, reason for selection and any other pertinent information. 
3. Tender of Advice to Yang di-Pertuan Agong:  Pursuant to Section 28 of the JACA 2009, if the Prime Minister accepts the recommendation of the JAC, he shall tender his advice on the appointment to Yang-Di-Pertuan Agong. Before tendering his advice, the Prime Minister shall consult with the current Chief Justice in accordance with Article 122B(2) of the Federal Constitution.  
4. Appointment by Yang di-Pertuan Agong: After consulting with the Conference of Rulers, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister to appoint the Chief Justice, in accordance with Article 122B(1) of the Federal Constitution. 

Under Section 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Chief Justice shall hold office until they attain the age of 66 years or such later time, unless they choose to resign or are removed form office for a breach of the code of ethics.  

This procedure is largely similar to the appointment of a Chief Justice in other nations. For example: 

• In Singapore the Chief Justice is similarly appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting with the current Chief Justice.  

• The Chief Justice of India is also appointed through a similar procedure whereby the Union Law Minister shall submit a recommendation to the Prime Minister, who in turns submits advice to the President, who appoints the Chief Justice by acting on that advice.  

• In Australia, the Chief Justice of the High Court is appointed the Cabinet acting on the advice of the attorney-general and a judicial appointments advisory panel.  

Transitional Period 

In the recent retirement of Tun Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat as Chief Justice, it has been noted that this was one of the few occasions in Malaysia’s history where a Chief Justice has retired without a clear successor being appointed in accordance with the standard procedure.  

A six-month extension may be granted to the retirement of Federal Court judges, which serves as a useful buffer and transitional period for the Chief Justice to sort out their judicial duties and affairs before their retirement. Pursuant to Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, the Chief Justice’s retirement date may be up to 6 months from the date of their 66th birthday, but the granting of an extension is always subject to the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It is rare, but not impossible, for a Chief Justice not to receive approval for an extension of tenure. Of the previous Chief Justices appointed, only two were not granted an extension : Tun Dato’ Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim (who did not receive approval) and Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Azmi (by choice). 

There have also been a few instances where the Chief Justice retired and there has been a brief delay in appointment of a successor by Yang di-Pertuan Agong, most notably on the retirements of Tun Dato’ Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim Tun and Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum. 

It should also be noted that there have been attempts to leverage the extension of the Chief Justice’s tenure. The nation observed this in 2017 with the controversial attempt to extend Chief Justice Tun Md Raus Sharif’s term for a further three years beyond the age of 66 years and 6 months. This was soundly criticised by the Malaysian Bar, political commentators and the judiciary, and ultimately led to Raus’s voluntary resignation.  

While the retirement of Tengku Maimun is a saddening event, in the context of the legislative procedure and past historical appointments, it is ultimately at the discretion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to extend the Chief Justice’s tenure. It is also not unusual for the Chief Justice to retire at a time when no successor has been appointed, although this is usually avoided due to the risk of judicial deadlock and uncertainty.  

Judicial Appointments and the Role of the JAC 

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) plays a pivotal role in recommending candidates for key judicial positions, including the office of Chief Justice. This process has successfully facilitated the appointments of distinguished individuals such as Tengku Maimun and the current incumbent, Dato’ Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh. 

However, public discourse has occasionally highlighted instances where the appointment process appeared to diverge from the JAC’s recommendations. For example, the appointments of Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum and Tun Md Raus Sharif have been subjects of debate, with commentators noting that these selections may have involved considerations beyond the Commission’s formal recommendations. 

As such, while in most cases the legislative appointment procedure has functioned well and appointed worthy judges such as Tengku Maimun to the apex court, it is understandable for the public to be wary of potential political bias or interference affecting the process. 

Notable Landmark Cases of Tengku Maimun 

Throughout her storied career, Tengku Maimun has repeatedly demonstrated integrity, decisiveness and objectivity highlighted by the JAC in its selection process. Examples of some of her most influential cases include: – 

• SIS Forum (Malaysia) & Anor v Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor & Ors [2025] 7 CLJ 179: In this case Tengku Maimun held that a fatwa could not apply to a corporation that could not profess the religion of Islam and the fatwa could not purport to direct Federal authorities to take action nor suggest that books could be confiscated or that social media restricts references to the appellants. This judgement reinforced the limits of religious authority in Malaysia. 

• Amir Hariri Abd Hadi v PP [2025] 7 CLJ 353: In this case Tengku Maimun struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act as unconstitutional, null and void for curtailing the right to freedom of peaceful assembly pursuant to Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. This was a powerful display of the Chief Justice’s authority to scrutinise unfair and unconstitutional legislation in order to preserve fundamental and constitutional rights.  

• Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan [2024] 3 CLJ 323: In this judgement Tengku Maimun declared 17 provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code as invalid, reaffirming that only Parliament has the power to legislate on criminal law. This decision set clearer limits on state assemblies’ powers in respect of Syariah and criminal laws, and highlighted the role of the judiciary in shaping a fairer, constitutional application of the law.   

• Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib Hj Abd Razak v PP & Other Appeals [2022] 8 CLJ 393: Tengku Maimun led the panel of Federal Court judges who upheld Najib’s sentence in the Federal Court, demonstrating the Court’s jurisdiction to administer justice and to prevent any abuse of process, even against the Prime Minister or other public officials.  

• Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor [2021] 3 CLJ 301: In this case, Tengku Maimun reiterated that a Muslim father had no right to unilaterally convert his child to Islam without the mother’s consent. This decision upheld the protection of minors from religious influence and delineated the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court in respect of minors. 

Honouring Her Legacy 

Tengku Maimun’s tenure as Chief Justice marked a defining chapter in Malaysia’s judicial history. As the first woman to hold the position and the second longest-serving Chief Justice, she brought not only distinction to the role but also a renewed sense of public confidence in the Federal Court. 

Her leadership was grounded in integrity, clarity, and a deep respect for the rule of law. Through her landmark decisions, she demonstrated how a transparent and principled appointment process under the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 can elevate individuals who embody the highest standards of judicial excellence. At the same time, her legacy invites reflection on past appointments that have drawn public scrutiny.  

These moments remind us that the strength of our judiciary depends not only on the calibre of its judges but also on the credibility of the processes that select them. As we look ahead, Tengku Maimun’s example offers more than inspiration. It sets a benchmark for future appointments, one defined by integrity, objectivity, and decisiveness. These are the values that must continue to guide the selection of Malaysia’s Chief Justices.