He said former law minister Nazri Aziz had taken the chief justice’s suggestion for the removal of the prime minister’s role in judicial appointments out of context.

“He wrongly portrayed it as a direct affront to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. In addition, he called for her not to make political remarks,” Ezri said in a statement defending the chief justice.

He argued that Tengku Maimun’s statement was clearly directed at the need for reforms in the area of judicial appointments.

“She expressed her views in a measured and objective tone. The doctrine of separation of powers remains a cornerstone of any functioning democracy.

“An integral part of that doctrine is the assurance that the process of judicial appointments is insulated from political influence,” he said.

On April 8, Tengku Maimun called for the prime minister to no longer have a role in judicial appointments, and said this would reinforce the impartiality of the process and ensure appointments are merit-based and free from any political influence.

However, Nazri defended the current system, saying Anwar had supported the formation of the Judicial Appointments Commission, designed to promote transparency in the appointment process, during his time as opposition leader.

He said Anwar has also never interfered in any case pending before the judiciary, citing the criminal cases brought against former prime minister Najib Razak.

“If Anwar interfered, Najib wouldn’t be in jail. The court sentenced him. The pardons board reviewed his case. Where is the interference?”

Nazri also expressed shock at Tengku Maimun’s “political remarks”, especially since they were made at an international event held overseas while she was still in office.

However, Ezri defended her comments as “robust and reasoned public discourse”, which should not only be permitted but encouraged.

“Meaningful debate, grounded in fact and driven by public interest, is essential in fostering accountability and in strengthening the very institutions we seek to protect,” he said.