The blade fell in 1988. Not a surgical incision, but a cleaver’s brutal arc through Malaysia’s constitutional spine.

The tribunalisation of Lord President Salleh Abas—an architect of judicial dignity—and the purging of Supreme Court justices, was no transient squall. It was an institutional amputation.

The scalpel of politics severed the spinal cord linking the Bench to its lifeblood: judicial independence.¹ Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Salleh bin Abas v Tribunal [1988] 3 MLJ 149.   Honour bled onto marble floors. The temple’s sanctum lay defiled.

A glacial winter descended, spanning decades

Within court corridors, silence echoed like the chambers of a tomb. Backlogs metastasised—120,000 cases had festered by 2008,² Malaysian Bar Council, Justice Delayed: Backlog Crisis Report (Kuala Lumpur, 2008) 17 burying justice beneath strata of neglect. Public trust withered to a skeletal 26%,³ Merdeka Centre, Trust in Public Institutions Survey (2010) Annex III. as cynicism seeped into the civic marrow.

Beyond Malaysia’s shores, the President of the International Court of Justice mourned, “a compromised temple”;⁴ R Higgins, ‘Courts in Crisis?’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 731, 735 while domestically, retired Justice Gopal Sri Ram lamented a descent into, “constitutional nihilism.”⁵ G Sri Ram, ‘The Judiciary’s Dark Night’ (2018) 4 MLJ lxvii

The Lina Joy appeal languished eight years in procedural purgatory—a soul trapped between theological doctrine and civil identity,⁶ Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam WP [2007] 4 MLJ 585.  emblematic of justice entombed by inertia. The courts moved, but only like spectres through fog.

The Embers Beneath Ash

Yet, within the frost, embers glowed.

Resistance was not always public, but etched in quiet defiance: a dissenting judgment carefully worded, a precedent upheld against whispered threats. The thaw began not with fanfare, but with the silent tenacity of those who remembered the robe’s covenant.

When Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ascended to the Chief Justiceship in 2019, she inherited not merely an institution, but ruins.

Foundations, cracked by tremors of distrust, awaited rebuilding. Stone by stone, she began repointing the edifice. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC)—once a cipher for patronage—was reforged. Deliberations emerged from shadowed chambers; recommendations were published like illuminated manuscripts.⁷ Judicial Appointments Commission (Procedure) Regulations 2018, reg 11 Merit became the lodestar. Sycophancy and nepotism retreated, like mist before dawn.

Jurisprudential Spring: A Tapestry of Courage

What blossomed was a jurisprudential renaissance, radiant in its diversity. Each ruling became a thread rewoven into the nation’s constitutional tapestry:

Against Executive Overreach:

In Semenyih Jaya (2017), the Federal Court resurrected the Basic Structure Doctrine—a constitutional defibrillator. “Parliament,” it declared, “is bound by the Constitution’s supreme animating spirit.”⁸ Semenyih Jaya v Pentadbir Tanah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561 [72].    The ruling electrified practitioners and legal academia: and sovereignty returned to the people.

Sanctuary of Belief:

Indira Gandhi Mutho (2018) shielded private faith from state intrusion. The Court forbade compulsion in matters of conscience,⁹Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors (2018)  affirming that belief thrives not in state-prescribed cages, but in the sanctuary of the soul.

Confronting Corruption:

In Najib Razak v PP  (2022), three courts found a former premier guilty of corruption with the precision of forensic archaeologists.¹⁰Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Pendakwa Raya [2022] MLJU 1949

Constitutional Supremacy and the shadow of the courts, even over parliamentary privilege

Gobind Singh Deo [2014]¹¹Yang Dipertua, Dewan Rakyat & Ors v Gobind Singh Deo [2014] 6 MLJ 821 addressed the delicate balance between protecting parliamentary privilege and ensuring that elected representatives can fulfil their role as stewards of the people’s voice within the constitutional framework.

Federal Court Justice Suriyadi emphasised that, because of the Constitutional Supremacy in Malaysia, “the court’s shadow [is] cast over Parliament’s proceedings. The court’s presence ensures that a check and balance exists.”

Beyond these titans, renewal touched every branch of the law

Taxpayer Justice:

In Transocean Drilling Sdn Bhd ¹²[2016] MLJU 502, and Keysight Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2024],¹³Keysight Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri[2024] MLJU 1271 the court barred retroactive tax assessments, affirming that fiscal certainty is the bedrock of commerce.

Travel Bans prevented

Maria Chin Abdullah v Ketua Pengarah Imigresen & Anor [2021],¹⁴ [2021] 2 CLJ 579 (FC) or [2021] 3 MLRA 2, involved the question of whether the Immigration could impose travel bans against critics of the government. The Federal Court ruled that the DG had acted unlawfully in imposing the travel ban.

Assembly Rights:

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad v. PP¹⁵CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: [B-09-303-11-2013], dated 25 APRIL 2014 dissolved arbitrary police permits, declaring streets the people’s forum. The ruling echoed through Bersih rallies.

Procedural Sanctity:

Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia (2010) questioned whether a provision that barred a lawyer-politician from participating in Bar Council elections was inconsistent with the Constitution,¹⁶ Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 3 CLJ 507 or  [2010] 2 MLJ 333 proving that justice begins with process.

Criminal Law Redemption:

In Public Prosecutor v Mohd Khairul Mahadi bin Hanapi [2022], ¹⁷[2022] MLJU 3384  even the Sessions Court rose to the occasion, declining to convict a person on grounds of defective procedural and evidential issues.

The Alchemy of Renewal

This transformation transcended doctrine. It lived in the texture of justice:

Judgments as Literature: Opinions now gleam with diamond clarity. Who can forget Justice Abdoolcader’s opening salvo in his ex-tempore, self-proclaimed, ‘vigorous’ dissent in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang (1988): “I intend to translate the sting of the thing into language as mild as I can mobilise and muster without mincing words.”¹⁸[1988] 2 MLJ 12 at 42

Lyrical language, thought long interred after Justice Abdoolcader’s passing, found its voice again in the words of Justice Zainun Ali: “Wherefore now stands the judge? It would appear that he sits by the sideline and dutifully anoints the assessors’ decision.” ¹⁹ Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd ¹⁹ Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561

The Backlog Vanquished: Through digital alchemy (‘MyJudgment’ portals) and monastic work ethic, case backlogs receded 68% by 2023.²⁰ Chief Justice’s Office, Annual Report 2023 (Putrajaya, 2024) 30 Justice shed its shackles of delay.

Temples of Justice: The Kota Kinabalu courthouse rose—not just stone and glass, but a physical ode to renewal. Its vaulted ceilings whisper of transparency; its open arches defy opacity.²¹ Sabah Law Society v Minister of Works [2021] MLJU 189

Committed Judges: Retired Chief Justice Richard Malanjum captured the Judiciary’s ethos: “They work now with Benedictine discipline. The robe is no longer cloth—it is covenant.”²² R Malanjum, The Renewal: A Memoir (Sweet & Maxwell 2022) 211

And so, night after long night, lights burned in judges’ chambers. Footnotes were polished, and precedents re-examined. The Bench remembered its oath.

Gathering Storms: The Test of Time

Yet no renaissance is impervious to twilight. Eight judicial titans—the architects of this rebirth—approach mandatory retirement by 2026.²³ Chief Registrar’s Circular No. 12/2024: Judicial Retirement Schedule (2024) Their departure is not routine. It is an exodus of institutional memory.

Apart from the first lady Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, in order of age, Justices Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, Datuk Zabariah Mohamad Yusof, Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Datuk Hanipah Farikullah, Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan — are names synonymous with the Rule of Law — and they will exit the stage: a Changing of the Guard.

Their successors, though erudite, are untested in constitutional furnaces. The Judicial Appointments Commission now faces its crucible:

Will meritocracy withstand political nostalgia? 

Can the forge resist regressive tempering? 

A single misstep—a politically compliant appointment, a retreat on judicial review—could fracture the edifice.

The oligarchy watches, and waits.

The shadows of 1988 linger in alcoves.

Epilogue: The Eternal Flame

This, then, is Malaysia’s judicial odyssey:

A fall into abyss.

A climb toward light.

A Beacon reignited.

The courts today stand as both tribunal and testament.

Their judgments bind both litigants and history.

Yet the flame remains vulnerable—to complacency, to covert pressure, and, crucially, to the Changing of the Guard.

For the Rule of Law is neither a monument for mere lip service, nor a relic consigned to the mists of things long forgotten.

“It is a living flame, flickering, and defiant: and yet vulnerable to every wind.

Guard it not with rhetoric, Malaysia, but with relentless vigilance.

For in its glow resides your sovereignty.

∞§∞

Gratitude: the author thanks UK Menon, KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela and Lydia Jaynthi.

Acknowledgements: the image is from Gabor Szuts, Unsplash

@Copyright reserved.

All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com