WHEN Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat steps down as Chief Justice on 2 July 2025, she leaves behind a judiciary more divided, distrusted, and doctrinally confused than ever before. Despite being the first woman to hold the post, her tenure has not been a triumph of progress — it has been a period marked by open judicial warfare, ideological entrenchment, and a judiciary that abandoned restraint for rhetoric.

A divided Federal Court

Under her watch, the Federal Court ceased to function as a united bench and descended into open ideological factionalism. Judges no longer disagreed politely; they wrote dissenting opinions dripping with sarcasm, contempt, and hostility. Her unwavering support for the Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD) became a rallying cry for a judicial faction that relentlessly pushed a dangerous idea: that judges — not Parliament — have the final say on what the Constitution truly means.

The BSD obsession: A doctrinal misstep

The Chief Justice’s endorsement of the BSD was not neutral or balanced. It became the cornerstone of her judicial legacy — and the cause of its collapse. From Semenyih Jaya to Dhinesh Tanaphll, and from Zaidi Kanapiah to Ketheeswaran, her Court pushed the BSD aggressively, frequently dismissing opposing views as outdated or unworthy. In doing so, they tore up long-standing precedents such as Loh Kooi Choon and Phang Chin Hock, which had respected Parliament’s constitutional amending power.

This ideological turn has had consequences far beyond legal theory. It has paralysed lower courts, opened the floodgates to opportunistic constitutional challenges, and created uncertainty in vital areas of law. Her Court’s rulings were no longer legal interpretations — they became ideological manifestos.

A judiciary that forgot its limits

More troubling was her Court’s creeping encroachment into executive and policy matters. Decisions began venturing into areas like immigration control, preventive detention, and religious administration — traditionally the realm of Parliament and the Cabinet. In case after case, the Court did not simply interpret law; it began to instruct the government how to run the country.

Judges were no longer neutral referees. They became policymakers in robes.

Pandering to a vocal minority

Throughout her tenure, Tengku Maimun pandered to an elite minority in the legal fraternity — a vocal group within the Bar Council and NGO circles — who elevated her to near-iconic status. They praised her for “judicial courage” and “transformative rulings,” but what they truly applauded was her willingness to entrench their worldview in constitutional doctrine.

This created an echo chamber where any challenge to the BSD or her approach was treated as a betrayal of justice itself. In return, she rewarded this praise by embedding their ideological values into the fabric of apex court jurisprudence. She was celebrated by the same circles that benefitted from her judgments — a dangerous symbiosis that distorted impartiality.

A legacy of fragility, not strength

Despite glowing tributes from friendly media and activist lawyers, the true legacy of her tenure is fragility — not strength. Her Court institutionalised division, encouraged factionalism, and drifted away from the neutral authority that a top court must command.

Instead of building consensus, she built a bloc. Instead of calming the legal system, she destabilised it.

Her legacy will not be one of unity, clarity, or restraint — it will be one of unchecked ideology, weaponised doctrine, and a judiciary that lost sight of its constitutional role.

The road ahead

Undoing the damage will take years. The next Chief Justice will need to prioritise:

• Rebuilding consensus and collegiality on the bench;

• Restoring judicial humility and respect for parliamentary sovereignty;

• Reviewing and rebalancing BSD-related precedents;

• Reaffirming the constitutional separation of powers.

The judiciary is not Parliament. It is not the Cabinet. It is not a political party. It must return to being what it was meant to be — the impartial guardian of law, not the architect of ideology.

Only then can Malaysia reclaim a judiciary that commands trust — not fear, not faction, and not flattery.

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