ON 10 May 2025, the Malaysian Bar will host a forum with the lofty title “Judicial Independence in Malaysia: Past Lessons, Current Challenges.” At first glance, it appears to be a scholarly and noble undertaking. But peel back the surface, and a different picture emerges — one of subtle partisanship, legal elitism, and institutional hypocrisy masquerading as reformist concern.

Let’s be clear: the cause of judicial independence is indisputably important. No credible voice would argue against an impartial judiciary. But what is concerning is how the Bar Council has weaponised this issue to advance a narrow, ideologically driven agenda — one that consistently shields activist judges aligned with its worldview while vilifying other branches of government that dare assert constitutional balance.

A Bar with Blinders: Selective Outrage

The Bar’s latest forum arises, not coincidentally, in the wake of fierce public and institutional debate over the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and the limits of judicial discretion. The timing is far from neutral. The Bar is responding directly to mounting pressure questioning the unchecked power of judges aligned with the so-called Basic Structure Doctrine — a doctrine never constitutionally enshrined, and often applied to override parliamentary intent.

Where was the Bar’s concern when the Federal Court openly disparaged fellow judges in dissenting opinions, violating the very collegiality and decorum it should defend? Why has it remained silent when the JAC process is manipulated from within by powerful judicial actors? Why no forums then?

Instead, the Bar reserves its outrage for moments when the executive or legislature reasserts its constitutional role, painting such moves as “threats” to judicial independence — as if the judiciary exists in a vacuum, answerable to no one.

The Usual Suspects: A Forum of Familiar Bias

Look at the speakers — Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi, Dato’ Mah Weng Kwai, and others — figures whose ideological commitments are well known. Most have long championed maximalist judicial power while turning a blind eye to judicial overreach. The panels are not about honest dialogue. They are echo chambers crafted to reinforce a single narrative: that the judiciary must be insulated from all forms of democratic oversight, especially from the elected government.

Notably, Assoc Prof Shamrahayu Ab Aziz is included — perhaps as a fig leaf of balance. But even her presence is unlikely to disrupt the predetermined trajectory of the event. The moderators — including Bar Vice President Anand Raj — are themselves active proponents of expansive judicial supremacy. Objectivity is not the goal here; affirmation is.

An Attempt to Rewrite the Constitutional Order

What the Bar is promoting under the banner of “judicial independence” is in truth an unaccountable judiciary. The Constitution is clear: judicial appointments are made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers. The JAC Act is a statutory mechanism, not a constitutional altar. If Parliament wishes to amend or repeal it, that is its prerogative — not a constitutional crisis.

Yet the Bar continues to push a narrative where any such move is painted as “interference,” while judges who stretch doctrines beyond recognition are hailed as guardians of democracy. This is not legal clarity; it is constitutional gaslighting.

Conclusion: The Bar Must Choose — Credibility or Partisanship

The Malaysian Bar stands at a crossroads. It can either return to its founding principles — impartiality, fairness, and fidelity to the Constitution as written — or continue down its current path of ideologically selective advocacy.

This forum is not about justice. It is about preserving the dominance of a judicial ideology that has lost touch with constitutional boundaries. If the Bar continues to peddle one-sided narratives while ignoring the growing concerns of Malaysians — including the Malay Rulers, the elected government, and ordinary citizens — it risks becoming not the conscience of the nation, but a faction within it.

*The writer is an advocate and solicitor, and actively involved in legal and constitutional discourse in Malaysia