In a statement today, Syed Amir said he had instructed his lawyers to discontinue the legal proceedings filed earlier this year at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
He said the decision was prompted by law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said’s acknowledgement that the JAC Act was open to improvement and that the government was willing to engage stakeholders to strengthen the appointments process.
“Given the government’s clear position and willingness to address the concerns raised, I am of the view that the constitutional challenge is no longer necessary at this juncture,” he said.
Syed Amir maintained that the suit was filed in good faith to raise awareness of the JAC Act’s structural shortcomings and invite a public conversation on institutional safeguards.
“I hope that, through this litigation, the legal fraternity, Parliament, and civil society now better appreciate the constitutional implications of the current judicial appointments process,” he added.
Syed Amir had filed an originating summons in early April, arguing that the powers vested in the nine-member JAC violated the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution.
He had sought a mandamus order to compel the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointments process prescribed under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
He further claimed that the JAC Act was inconsistent with Article 4, which declares the written constitution as the supreme law of the land.
An application was filed on June 25 to refer 16 legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the JAC to the Federal Court for deliberation.
These questions, Syed Amir had said, touched on key provisions such as Articles 122B, 125, and 132, which govern judicial appointments, tenure, and the public service.
“I respectfully urge the government to study them in good faith, including whether constitutional amendments are required to align the JAC framework with our constitutional structure and values,” he added.