Judicial Appointment: PM cannot be considered just a “channel” – AGC
Putrajaya – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim cannot be considered only as a “channel” that receives recommendations from any party regarding the appointment in the court including the position of chairman of the court and president of the Court of Appeals.
According to a statement issued by the Attorney General’s Room (AGC), the Prime Minister has a responsibility under the federal constitution to give advice to those of Agong for the purpose of protecting freedom, credibility, and judicial integrity.
“What Agong was predestined had approved the appointment of several high court judges and the appeal court last month but the appointment still had to go through several formalities.
“Therefore, such an appointment must be done regularly and orderly,” the statement said on Tuesday.
The department refers to the media statement by Pandan MPs, along with several parliamentary members who urged the formation of the Royal Investigation Commission (RCI) and the Parliamentary Election Committee regarding the appointment in the judiciary, including the highest position in the institution.
AGC added that the department brought the importance of people’s trust in the judicial selection process and emphasized the principle of judicial freedom as guaranteed by the federal constitution.
The appointment of the High Court judges is provided based on Article 122B of the Federal Constitution which states that the judge will be appointed by those who are preserved on the suggestion of the Prime Minister, after consulting with the Ruler Council.
“Law of the 2009 Judicial Appointment Commission [Akta 695] This is a law that detailed the candidate selection process, but the power to give advice to those who were exclusively pre-farting for the Prime Minister.
“The time and process of completing the appointment, especially for positions such as the Chairperson of the Court and President of the Court of Appeals are subject to the procedures set under the Federal Constitution.
“This must take into account all aspects including the need for negotiations and implementation of policy authority in accordance with the existing constitutional framework,” AGC said.
Read: Visit Italy, France and the Purpose of Brazilian Success – PM Anwar
Meanwhile, AGC said in connection with the statement of the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) meeting without sufficient notice based on Section 13 (2) Law 695, it must be stated that JAC can regulate its own procedure.
“When there is an urgent situation, the authorities can usually continue the meeting with a brief notification if there is an agreement of all members.
“Procedural things should not affect JAC’s assessment unless there are elements Mala Fide Or clear prejudice, “said the statement.
AGC also announced the accusation that the Federal Court judge was involved in influencing the court’s decision and the judge’s re -assigning was a serious accusation.
However, the consideration at JAC’s meeting is a secret and is protected by law.
These accusations cannot be equated with violations that have been proven or damaged by judicial freedom and remain a premature and speculative accusation.
“Comparison with the case of VK Lingam in 2007 is unreasonable at this stage.
“This case involved clear proof of intervention in the process of appointing judges until the investigation commission was established at that time.
“The situation is different from the current scenario where accusations/accusations are only based on the inability of procedures and assumptions that are not supported by strong evidence.
“Parliament can always examine the problem of institutions through the establishment of the committee underneath.
“However, the appointment under the federal constitution must be handled carefully so that the strengths that are preceded by Agong and the prime minister are not political polemic.
“Both of these institutions must use independent authority as enshrined based on the federal constitution.
Read: United States is a 25 percent tariff for all Malaysian products
“The department will always tell the government in the administration of justice in the event of basic evidence.
“In the absence of such evidence, all authorities allowed by law need to be given the opportunity to fulfill their responsibilities without pressure, speculation, or public campaign.
“The situation at this time must be monitored and it is hoped that no one will act in a hurry. Time fragmentation or procedure in the case of appointment is not always a constitutional crisis.
“The appointment system must be implemented through valid procedures, respecting the role of the institution and provisions of the federal constitution.
“All parties must always be responsible for upholding the law and principles of separation of responsibilities can be fulfilled by strengthening the maturity of the institution rather than just making an unfounded speculation,” AGC said.
Source: Attorney General’s Room
The Judicial Appointment Post: PM should not be considered just a “channel” – AGC first appeared in Keli Siakap.
Game Center
Game News
Review Film
Rumus Matematika
Anime Batch
Berita Terkini
Berita Terkini
Berita Terkini
Berita Terkini
review anime
