Gopal Sri Ram said nobody would believe such claims, which were unfair to Arifin Zakaria.
“There do not appear to be any strings attached to his (Arifin’s) recommendations that the two should continue to retain their respective positions,” Sri Ram told FMT.
He was responding to former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who said in a blog post on Tuesday that he accepted the appointment of Chief Justice Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal president Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as additional judges on the advice of Arifin.
However, Hamid also raised the possibility that the parties involved had worked out a plan that the appointment was to retain Raus and Zulkefli in their present posts.
“Who would believe that there was no prior understanding between the previous chief justice (Arifin) and the prime minister (with the agreement of Raus and Zulkefli) that the purpose of advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong was to appoint both as additional judges so as to enable them to continue to be the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal, respectively?” he said.
Hamid, who was chief justice for about a year from 2007, said otherwise it was questionable if Raus and Zulkefli would agree to continue serving in a lower position than before their retirement in 2020 and 2019 respectively.
According to protocol, an additional judge ranks the most junior compared with a Federal Court judge who is elevated from the Court of Appeal.
On Wednesday, Arifin said he had advised the king to appoint both Raus and Zulkefli as additional judges only after retirement.
Sri Ram, who retired as a Federal Court judge in 2010, said apart from that issue, he was in agreement with Hamid’s stand that the purpose of Article 122(1A) was for the appointment of additional judges of the Federal Court only.
Sri Ram said it was unclear who had proposed Raus to be appointed chief justice after Aug 3.
“There is no cogent evidence to show who made the recommendation as chief justice. No magic that could make an additional judge as chief justice,” he said.
Sri Ram said under normal circumstances, the retiring chief justice would make the recommendation to the prime minister through the Judicial Appointments Commission.
“The proposal will be tabled before the Conference of Rulers for assent before the king makes the appointment,” he said.
He said the king conveyed the instrument of appointment when the chief justice took the judicial oath before him.
Last week, a media announcement from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said the king had approved Arifin’s proposal to appoint Raus and Zulkefli as additional judges.
Following the approval, the PMO statement said the king, on the advice of the prime minister and after consulting the Conference of Rulers which met in May, had appointed Raus and Zulkefli to remain in their present posts.
Raus’ tenure is for three years from Aug 4 while Zulkefli will remain in his current administrative post for two years from Sept 28.
Lawyers and the Malaysian Bar have questioned whether Arifin’s advice to the king was constitutional.
However, senior lawyers Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Jagjit Singh took the stand that Arifin’s action was legal and the extension of tenure for Raus and Zulkelfi is constitutional.
Hamid had voiced his disapproval through his blog in May, saying a further extension to Raus’ tenure would be unconstitutional and would cause uncertainty in the judiciary.
In his posting on Tuesday, Hamid said the judiciary would be perceived as pro-government should Raus and Zulkefli hold on to their posts.
Similar opinions had been expressed by Sri Ram, former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim and current Malaysian Bar president George Varughese.