PM Anwar faces growing revolt among PH MPs over allegations of judicial interference
P Ramasamy
It will be difficult for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to quell the growing revolt among Pakatan Harapan (PH) Members of Parliament over allegations of judicial interference.
Anwar has called for a meeting with all PH MPs on July 14, 2025, at 4.30 pm at his office in Putrajaya. The urgency of the meeting reflects rising discontent within the coalition.
However, a day earlier—on July 13, 2025—a significant public forum on judicial integrity will be held in Kuala Lumpur at 8 pm. The forum, organised by former minister and MP Rafizi Ramli, is expected to draw substantial attention and attendance from PH MPs.
The focus of the forum is Prime Minister Anwar’s alleged interference in judicial appointments, including the controversial decision not to extend the tenure of several senior Federal Court judges, most notably former Chief Justice Tengku Maimun.
The forum will also raise critical questions: Why were the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) disregarded? Why were certain judges promoted over others? And was there any truth to claims that the JAC held a meeting without observing the mandatory 10-day notice period?
The forum will push for Anwar to appear before the parliamentary select committee to respond to these allegations. As pressure mounts both within Parliament and the public domain, Anwar’s leadership faces one of its most serious internal challenges to date.
Your donations are vital to keep some independent voices alive.
Just click here or goto https://buymeacoffee.com/murrayhunter
Subscribe Below:
A storm is brewing in Malaysia’s political and judicial spheres, sparked by P. Ramasamy’s provocative claims in a recent article published on Murray Hunter’s blog. Ramasamy, himself a former academic and politician, alleges a “growing revolt” within the ranks of Pakatan Harapan (PH), the coalition led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, over alleged interference in judicial appointments.
Central to his critique is the decision not to extend the tenure of former Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who retired on July 2, 2025, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 66. Ramasamy’s piece, amplified by former Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli’s public forum to address these concerns, paints a picture of a judiciary under siege and a coalition on the brink of fracture. But how much of this narrative holds water, and what does it reveal about Malaysia’s delicate balance of power?
Ramasamy’s article points to a significant public forum organized by Rafizi Ramli, which seeks to scrutinize what he calls “executive overreach” in judicial matters, particularly the government’s failure to act on recommendations from the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
The JAC, a body established under the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 to propose candidates for judicial roles, reportedly submitted names for key appointments, including the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal, prior to Tengku Maimun’s retirement. Yet, these recommendations were not acted upon, leaving the judiciary leaderless and fueling speculation of political interference. Rafizi, backed by eight other PH MPs, has called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to probe these delays, a move that some analysts interpret as a direct challenge to Anwar’s leadership.
However, Ramasamy’s portrayal of Tengku Maimun as a beacon of judicial enlightenment and a victim of political machination demands scrutiny. His assertion that her tenure was unjustly cut short ignores the constitutional framework governing judicial appointments in Malaysia. Under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution, judges retire at 66, with a possible six-month extension at the discretion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, advised by the Prime Minister.
The JAC’s recommendations, while significant, are not binding; they are advisory, leaving the final decision to the Prime Minister and the King. To suggest that disregarding these recommendations is unconstitutional, as Ramasamy implies, misrepresents the legal reality. The Prime Minister’s authority in this process, as outlined in Article 122B, is a cornerstone of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy, not a flaw to be vilified.
Moreover, Ramasamy’s lionization of Tengku Maimun as an exemplary jurist is contentious. While she presided over high-profile cases, including the conviction of former Prime Minister Najib Razak in the SRC International corruption case, her tenure was not without criticism. Her rulings on religious and constitutional matters, such as the 2024 decision declaring parts of Kelantan’s Syariah Criminal Code unconstitutional, sparked polarized reactions. Supporters hailed her as a champion of judicial independence, but detractors argued she overstepped judicial bounds, aligning with political currents in Malaysia’s complex ethno-religious landscape. Far from being a “stooge” as some critics claim, her record suggests a judge navigating a fraught terrain, but one whose legacy is far from unassailable.
The call for Tengku Maimun’s tenure extension, championed by Rafizi and echoed by Ramasamy, raises deeper questions about their motives. Would Tengku Maimun herself endorse such public advocacy, especially if it risks politicizing the judiciary she sought to shield from interference? Her final remarks on July 2, expressing no regret over her retirement and emphasizing the judiciary’s need for public trust, suggest a measured perspective, not a desire to cling to power. Ramasamy’s framing of her as a wronged figure may serve his narrative but risks undermining the very judicial independence he claims to defend.
Ramasamy’s broader attack on Anwar also warrants examination. He accuses the Prime Minister of betraying PH’s reformist ideals, yet conveniently glosses over his own role in destabilizing the Barisan Nasional government in 2018, which paved the way for PH’s rise.
Ramasamy's selective memory paints him as an inconsistent critic, railing against Anwar while ignoring his own contributions to Malaysia’s political volatility. The “revolt” he describes within PH, led by Rafizi’s faction, is less a unified uprising than a reflection of internal party tensions, exacerbated by Anwar’s daughter Nurul Izzah’s victory over Rafizi in PKR’s recent elections. This personal rivalry, rather than pure ideological zeal, may be driving the current discord.
As Malaysia navigates this judicial crossroads, the stakes are high. The vacancies in the Federal Court, with nine of its 14 judges set to retire by November 2025, demand a transparent and merit-based appointment process. Anwar’s administration must tread carefully to avoid perceptions of executive overreach, particularly given his own unresolved legal battles, including a civil lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct.
Ramasamy’s inflammatory rhetoric, coupled with Rafizi’s public posturing, risks turning a legitimate debate into a political spectacle. If judicial independence is the goal, all sides must prioritize constitutional fidelity over partisan point-scoring.
Tengku Maimun’s departure, whether celebrated or lamented, marks a pivotal moment for Malaysia’s judiciary. Rather than fueling division, stakeholders should focus on ensuring her successor upholds the rule of law without fear or favor. Ramasamy’s provocations may grab headlines, but they offer little clarity in a nation yearning for stability and trust in its institutions.