I WAS going through the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) website to see the composition of its members and I noticed that the current attorney-general as one of its members.

Article 138(2)(a) of the federal constitution states that the membership of the JLSC shall, firstly, consist of a chairman (who is also the chairman of the Public Service Commission).

Article 138(2)(b) of the federal constitution states that the membership of the JLSC shall, secondly, consist of the attorney-general, or if the attorney-general is an MP or is appointed otherwise than among members of the judicial and legal service, the solicitor-general.

We shall look further into Article 138(2)(b) later below as that is subject of a contention here.

Article 138(2)(c) of the federal constitution states that the membership of the JLSC shall, thirdly, consist of one or several other members appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, after consultation with the chief justice, from among persons who are or have been, or are qualified to be, a judge of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal or a high court or shall before Malaysia Day have been a judge of the Supreme Court.

Article 138(3) of the federal constitution states that the secretary to the Public Service Commission shall also be the secretary of the JLSC.

Let us dissect Article 138(2)(b) now.

It states that the JLSC shall consist of the attorney-general, OR, if the attorney-general is a member of Parliament or is appointed otherwise than from among members of the judicial and legal service, then the solicitor-general shall replace the attorney-general.

The current attorney-general is not an member of parliament so that does not become an issue.

Issue: is the current A-G a member of the judicial and legal service?

If yes, then it would mean that he can be a member of the commission.

If no, can he be a member of the commission because it would appear that the current A-G would be an A-G that is “appointed otherwise than among members of the judicial and legal service” and, therefore, the solicitor-general should be a member of the commission, and not the current A-G.

From the JLSC website, it states that under Article 144 (6) of the federal constitution, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission has delegated its authority to the “board of officers” consisting of solicitor-general of the Attorney -General’s Chambers and the chief registrar of the Federal Court to consider and approve confirmation of service and conferment of pensionable status to officers in the judicial and legal service.

It is humbly submitted that the solicitor-general is supposed to be part of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, and not be subject of a delegated authority in the style of a board of officers.

Even if one were to interpret Article 138(2)(c ) to mean that since the A-G is a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court (as stated in Article 145(1)) and, therefore, can be appointed by the Agong as a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, that does not  take away the constitutional requirement under Article 138(2)(b) that the solicitor-general must be a member if the A-G is “appointed otherwise than among members of the judicial and legal service”. – October 18, 2018.

* Puthan Perumal is an advocate & solicitor.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.