Fresh off the heels of a much-hyped “judicial crisis” that gripped national attention not too long ago, the Malaysian judiciary is once again in the spotlight — this time over allegations not of external interference, but internal pressure. And the person at the centre of the storm is none other than the former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
The claim comes from Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, the recently retired Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and the fourth most senior judge in the country. During his farewell address on July 23 in Kuching — just two days before retirement — he alleged that, during his time as a Federal Court judge, he had come under pressure from a “very senior” judge over his opinion in a constitutional case. While he stopped short of naming names, the implication was clear.
When approached later by reporters, Abdul Rahman remained firm: “I have nothing else to say. I stick to my speech.” Asked why he waited until retirement to speak up, he simply replied, “I think this is the right time lah.” And when asked if he feared repercussions, he responded, “I am not worried. I am saying what is right.”
According to him, the pressure came in the form of an email criticizing his interpretation of a constitutional matter. Despite the email, he stood by his reasoning — and his draft judgment ultimately formed the 4-3 majority decision in the case.
However, his victory was short lived - later on, that decision was later overturned by a new panel of three judges, of whom two were from those who had original been in the minority. The new judgment , ironically, was then written by the very judge who had previously dissented.
Furthermore, Abdul Rahman also claimed that there were plans to issue show-cause letters to him and the two other judges who had supported the original ruling.
“Had it gone ahead, I might have suffered the same fate as former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hamid Sultan,” he said, referring to disciplinary proceedings against a former judge.
In Abdul Rahman's words, any attempts to pressure judges into aligning with more senior colleagues is an tantamount to interference - a very assault on the principle of judicial independence itself.
“We often talk about executive interference. But it is even more dangerous when the pressure comes from within the judiciary. That is a form of harassment that cannot be tolerated.
“The courts cannot be truly free if the ‘sword of Damocles’ is constantly hanging over judges’ heads,” he said.
He believed only divine intervention had thwarted the attempt to convene a tribunal against him and two other judges who had dissented against their seniours.
He believed only divine intervention had thwarted an attempt to convene a tribunal against them.
“Had it gone ahead, I might have suffered the same fate as former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hamid Sultan,” he said, referring to disciplinary proceedings against the outspoken former judge.
When Tengku Maimun was asked to comment, she declined to get into a public dispute. Instead, she pointed out that during her six years as Chief Justice, she dissented in five out of 19 Federal Court cases involving constitutional matters — a record, she said, that proved the judiciary's independence.
With respect, that argument simply doesn’t hold up.
Just because she dissented in five cases does not, in itself, prove that judicial pressure never occurred. It could be coincidental. Or it could be strategic — the kind of calculated concession used to create the appearance of independence. After all, even students who cheat in exams know better than to copy 100% of the answers. You copy 80%, and get a few wrong to make it look natural. Even a pro-government news outlet knows that it should criticize the government and praise the opposition once in a while, in order to appear objective and independent.
Likewise, a 5-out-of-19 dissent rate might reflect not real diversity of thought, but a carefully managed image — a manufactured normality. It tells us nothing about what goes on behind the scenes, nor does it address Abdul Rahman's specific allegation of pressure.
And that brings us to the obvious solution:
Release the email.
Redact names or sensitive details if necessary. But show the email to the public. Let us see for ourselves whether the tone was collegial — or coercive.
As for Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) adviser N. Surendran’s argument that Abdul Rahman's allegation is “plainly wrong” and “illogical”, his argument: a judge cannot “interfere” in a decision that they themselves are involved in, and discussions between judges on a multi-judge panel are routine, even healthy, also fails to convince.
If a case is decided by a panel of seven judges, and the final decision is based on a majority, then of course a senior judge can pressure others — especially junior judges — to align with their view. This is not illogical; it’s basic human power dynamics.
And whether a conversation is collegial or coercive depends not only on what is said, but how it is said — and who is saying it.
In any professional setting, context matters. If your senior holds the keys to your promotion, oversees your conduct through the Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) and Judicial Ethics Committee (JEC), and then firmly tells you your interpretation is wrong — it’s not just discussion. It can easily be perceived as pressure.
Whether a senior judge is expressing an opinion or issuing a subtle directive often comes down to whether they view you as a peer — or a subordinate.
When you treat someone as an equal, your tone reflects mutual respect and reasoned persuasion. You might say:
“Based on A, I believe B follows. And if B is true, then C naturally results. Therefore, I’ve arrived to my conclusion based on this line of reasoning."
If I respect you as a peer but disagree, I might respond:
“I can see how you deem A to lead to B and C. But I’m not fully convinced about A. That raises doubts about the rest — so perhaps we should re-examine A more carefully.”
That’s how equals deliberate — through logic and reflection.
But if I say:
“You’re completely wrong about everything. Your entire basis is wrong. The correct answer is this. Re-do everything according to the answer that i have given you.”
Then I’m not treating you as a peer. I’m treating you as someone expected to obey, not think — a subordinate, not a colleague.
Surendran also makes the flawed claim that interference only counts when it comes from outside the judiciary, such as the executive. That’s simply false. Improper influence is improper influence, no matter the source. Whether it comes from a minister or a senior judge, it undermines the same principle: judicial independence.
This is not a petty he-said-she-said between two retired judges. It’s a serious matter that goes to the heart of public trust in the judiciary. Does the highest court in the land operate as a chamber of independent minds — or merely echo the voice of one dominant figure?
Once again, the solution is clear and simple:
Release the email.
There’s no need for weeks of speculation, media statements, and counter-statements. Just show us the email. Let us see for ourselves what the emails said — and who, if anyone, crossed the line.
And frankly, if this were a case before the court, isn’t this exactly what both Abdul Rahman and Tengku Maimun would have demanded? Disclosure. Transparency. Evidence.
So why are we settling for anything less now?
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
