Its president, Nazim Maduarin, said the Bar’s commitment to upholding the rule of law is commendable and reflects the shared responsibility of all in the legal profession to safeguard Malaysia’s legal and judicial integrity.

“For SLS, judicial independence is not just a principle, it is a belief we put into action,” he said in a statement.

Nazim said that when SLS filed a judicial review concerning Sabah’s claim of 40% revenue from the federal government, it was not just about constitutional rights but trust placed in the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary.

“We believe that the courts must remain free to adjudicate impartially, even in cases involving high constitutional stakes,” he said.

He said the judicial review challenge is in itself a gauge of judicial independence and affirmation that justice can be sought and won, free from interference.

Nazim said that while SLS continued to focus on advocating for Sabah’s rights and interests, it also “stood 10 toes in” supporting national efforts that uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

SLS is challenging a 2022 gazette on special grant payments prescribed by the Federal Constitution. The High Court in Kota Kinabalu will hear the matter later this year.

On Saturday, lawyers at the Bar’s annual general meeting unanimously passed a motion to condemn in its strongest terms any interference in judicial appointments as provided in the Federal Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act.

It also urged the government to establish an independent commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s speech at the opening of the legal year in January.

The second motion called for the Bar Council to take immediate action, whether through public statements or legal proceedings, whenever credible information arises regarding attempts to undermine judicial independence or improperly influence judicial appointments.

At the opening of the legal year, Tengku Maimun said judicial independence must be protected at all costs and that external interference in the appointment or promotion of judges was unacceptable.

Her remarks were widely interpreted within the legal fraternity as a reference to recent appointments that may have been made outside the proper constitutional and statutory framework.