THE recent statement by HAKAM and its president, M Ramachelvam [a Member of the Malaysian Bar], alleging a “selective approach” in the extension of judicial tenure under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution is deeply misleading, legally flawed, and politically charged. It reflects a worrying attempt to pressure the Executive into pre-determined outcomes on a matter that is constitutionally and conventionally within the discretion of the Prime Minister and ultimately, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

1. No constitutional right to extension

To begin with, Article 125(1) does not guarantee any judge an automatic extension upon reaching the age of 66. It merely empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to grant an extension of “not more than six months” — and only if such advice is given. The Article creates a permissive power, not an entitlement. The notion that any judge, regardless of rank or gender, is entitled to an extension misrepresents the constitutional framework and disregards the element of discretion involved. This discretion is essential in preserving the integrity, impartiality, and succession planning of the judiciary.

2. No convention of automatic extensions

Ramachelvam falsely claims that extensions are “customarily” granted. This is historically and factually inaccurate. Extensions have always been  assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account institutional needs, judicial pipeline, leadership succession, and the constitutional interests of the Federation. That some judges in the past received extensions does not create a constitutional or conventional right for others to expect the same. The mere fact that extensions were granted to Judges Abdul Rahman Sebli, Hasnah Hashim, or others does not make it obligatory to replicate the same for Tengku Maimun, Abang Iskandar, or Nallini.

3. Undue pressure on the Executive

By demanding that the Government “explain” why certain judges have not yet received extensions, Hakam is effectively interfering in a constitutionally protected Executive discretion. This politicisation of judicial tenure dangerously blurs the separation of powers that Hakam itself claims to defend. Public agitation to pre-empt the Executive’s decision or imply mala fide intent undermines judicial independence — it does not protect it.

4. Questionable neutrality and credibility

Hakam’s credibility suffers when it selectively praises judges who are ideologically aligned with its worldview while ignoring equally qualified judges who may differ in judicial philosophy. The attempt to elevate certain judges as guardians of a “judicial renaissance” while implicitly disparaging others reflects not an objective commitment to justice, but partisan favouritism cloaked in NGO language. Independence must not only be defended — it must also be perceived to be free from ideological cliques and elite advocacy groups.

5. Misplaced alarmism and manufactured crisis

The claim that the non-extension of three judges “threatens the integrity of our nation’s justice system” is gross hyperbole. Malaysia’s judiciary is not a one-woman or three-person institution. It is built on institutional continuity, the rule of law, and the Federal Constitution. The retirement of judges is a normal and planned occurrence. Judicial succession mechanisms exist precisely to ensure continuity without personalising or politicising the Bench.

6. The role of the Prime Minister and public trust

The Prime Minister is duty-bound to consider all relevant factors — including the need for leadership renewal, judicial diversity, and public confidence — before advising the Agong on any extension. That advice is not subject to lobbying, media pressure, or NGO demands. If anything, the public expects impartial, principled decisions free from the very lobbying Hakam now engages in.

Conclusion

Malaysia’s judiciary is not weakened by dignified retirements. It is weakened when NGOs attempt to shape the Bench through public campaigns disguised as rights advocacy. The principle of judicial independence is not served by demanding the retention of individual judges. It is served by respecting the constitutional process and allowing orderly succession to take its course — free from political orchestration and media manipulation.

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