In a statement, Malaysian Bar president Ezri Abdul Wahab said there had been no formal announcement of a successor or any indication of whether an extension would be granted to Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
Tengku Maimun reaches the mandatory retirement age of 66 on Wednesday, and tomorrow will be her last day in office.
Malaysian Bar president Ezri Abdul Wahab said the Bar had consistently refrained from advocating for or against the appointment or extension of any individual judge.
He added that the Bar’s call for clarity on the impending transition was made in good faith and in line with its duty to uphold institutional continuity and public confidence in the administration of justice.
“What we are witnessing now is not a matter of lobbying or preference; it is a matter of urgency, transparency, and the proper functioning of a constitutional democracy,” he said.
“With less than 48 hours before the sitting chief justice retires, there is still no official word from the relevant authorities.
“In the absence of clarity, the public begins to speculate. Rumours thrive, and confidence erodes. None of this should be allowed to happen – and yet, all of it could have been easily avoided with timely action.”
He added that the country had clear precedents for managing transitions in judicial leadership, with acting appointments made when necessary.
Earlier today, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said there appeared to be a campaign to pressure the government to either extend or end specific tenures, which he warned could politicise institutions meant to remain independent.
Anwar said that extending the service of civil servants, including top judges, was not automatic and must follow the procedures set out in the Federal Constitution.
Article 125 of the Federal Constitution states that superior court judges shall hold office until the age of 66, but their tenure can be extended for up to six months by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
In his statement, Ezri said the Malaysian Bar agreed in principle that judicial independence must be safeguarded from political interference and undue lobbying.
“However, we caution against conflating legitimate institutional concern and public accountability with politicisation,” he said.
“There is a meaningful distinction between supporting or objecting to a particular individual, and calling out a systemic failure that may erode confidence in the rule of law.”