The recent appointment of Federal Court judge Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has sparked questions that go far beyond individual personalities.

On November 19, the lawyer and former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief, Latheefa Koya, called the appointment “simply unacceptable,” citing unresolved allegations against Terrirudin that suggest possible interference in the judiciary. It must be stated that these allegations are still not proven.

While the controversy may appear technical or internal, it touches on fundamental issues of governance, accountability, and the rule of law. These are issues that affect every Malaysian.

Latheefa’s concern stems from a purported leak of JAC meeting minutes last May, in which a now-retired judge allegedly accused Terrirudin of judicial interference.

Although the authenticity of the leak remains unconfirmed, the allegations were serious enough to provoke calls for a royal commission of inquiry or tribunal.

To date, the only formal action taken has been a police investigation into the source of the leak and a probe against the news portal Malaysiakini for asking related questions—a move that has raised concerns about press freedom.

At the heart of Latheefa’s warning is a simple question: were the allegations investigated at all? If so, what were the outcomes? The government’s silence on this matter has significant implications, far beyond the immediate controversy.

In addition, the Bar Council has questioned the lack of transparency over Terrirudin’s appointment as “troubling” and more importantly, the Edge reported that the Negeri Sembilan ruler, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, has also thrown his weight behind the objections raised.

Here are ten factors to show that Latheefa’s concerns should be taken seriously.

Judicial integrity is at stake

The judiciary must operate independently to maintain fairness and impartiality. Appointing a judge under a cloud of unresolved allegations risks undermining the credibility of the entire system.

Transparency in governance

Without answers about investigations, the public is left uncertain whether officials are acting in the nation’s interest or shielding insiders from accountability.

Checks and balances could be weakened

The JAC exists to ensure that judicial appointments are fair and merit-based. If appointments are influenced by political considerations or unresolved allegations, this essential oversight is compromised.

Potential abuse of power

Allegations of interference in the judiciary suggest that some officials may exert undue influence on legal outcomes, and this presents a dangerous precedent for the rule of law.

Media freedom is under threat

The investigation against Malaysiakini demonstrates that asking probing questions about judicial integrity can provoke legal action, discouraging journalists from pursuing stories that hold power accountable.

Public confidence in leadership

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s government has yet to address these concerns publicly. Continued silence can erode the citizens’ trust in both government and judiciary. These will raise doubts about their commitment to justice.

Impact on future appointments

Ignoring unresolved allegations sets a dangerous precedent that controversial figures may hold high office without scrutiny, thus potentially normalising questionable appointments.

Rule of law vs. political quotas

Terrirudin’s appointment under the prime minister’s executive quota highlights the tension between political influence and judicial independence. This tension may possibly affect the fairness of trials and the legal system as a whole.

Institutional reputation is at risk

The judiciary’s credibility is essential for domestic and international trust. Scandals like this can damage Malaysia’s standing in the eyes of investors, human rights organizations, and foreign governments.

Civic awareness and engagement

By raising these issues publicly, Latheefa encourages Malaysians to be vigilant, ask questions, and demand transparency—a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

If many Malaysians ignored Latheefa’s warning, then the consequences of ignoring the Issue are manifold. Leaving her questions unanswered will have a profound impact on our society, governance and the rule of law.

First. Are Malaysians prepared for the erosion of Judicial Independence? Without accountability, judges may act with impunity, allowing political or personal influences to shape legal outcomes.

Following on from this, there will possibly be an increase in public distrust in courts. If citizens perceive the judiciary as biased or compromised, they may lose faith in the legal system altogether. This will not be good for the nation.

There will be a weakening of anti-corruption efforts because the credibility of agencies like the MACC, depends on holding all individuals accountable. Our continued reluctance or hesitation, to ignore the allegations against high-ranking judges could embolden corruption.

There will also be a chilling effect on whistleblowers and journalists. The experience of reporters from Malaysiakini show that legal action against those who ask difficult questions may discourage the exposure of wrongdoing in the future. This again, will be bad for the nation.

The political manipulation of judicial bodies means that executive influence over appointments, especially without scrutiny, risks undermining the separation of powers.

The normalisation of controversial appointments may continue or even increase if unresolved allegations are tolerated. This means that future appointments may ignore merit and integrity, thus weakening institutional standards.

At a time when we need our economy to grow, the loss of international confidence by investors, legal experts and foreign governments will be bad for Malaysia. They may perceive Malaysia’s judiciary as compromised, and the detrimental effect on investment and diplomatic relations does not auger well for the nation.

The social disillusionment because of this appointment is serious. Citizens may disengage from civic life, if they believe accountability is selectively applied and this can only weaken democratic participation.

Besides all the above factors, legal abuse may encourage powerful individuals to possibly exploit legal loopholes or processes if consequences are unlikely, thus further undermining justice.

If all the above are not convincing enough, then the potential backlash and instability, together with the growing frustration over perceived impunity can fuel protests, political pressure, or polarization, threatening stability.

Latheefa Koya’s remarks are not merely a critique of an appointment; it is a warning about the health of Malaysia’s institutions.

Judicial independence, accountability, press freedom and public trust are all interconnected, and ignoring unresolved allegations against a high-ranking judge could slowly erode the pillars of democracy. The effect on governance, investor confidence, and everyday citizens’ rights will be tremendous.

For Malaysians, the question is not just about one judge or one commission because it is about the standards we expect from those in power and our collective willingness to demand transparency.

By paying attention to Latheefa’s concerns, citizens can protect the integrity of institutions that serve the public, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

(Mariam Mokhtar is a Freelance Writer.)