Navigating Legal Pluralism of the Federal Constitution and Sharia Law in Malaysia

Trailblazing Former Malaysian Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat sat down with In the Robe to reflect on a tenure defined by the fierce protection of fundamental rights. She connects the abstract concept of judicial independence to everyday issues like environmental rights, livelihoods, and fair commercial contracts. She openly discusses navigating conflicts between secular civil courts and Sharia courts, emphasizing that judges must remain courageous and steadfast regardless of shifting public sentiment. Finally, she shares a powerful, replicable blueprint for bridging the gap between the courts and the public.

 

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat served as the Chief Justice of Malaysia from 2019 to 2025. Prior to this appointment, Maimun served in the public defence and the prosecution. She became known as a vital minority voice within the judiciary, consistently ruling against arbitrary state actions and high-level government corruption, while upholding fundamental rights amidst the challenges of Malaysia's legal pluralism.

We interviewed her in January 2026.

---

 

Ana Cardenas (WJP): Welcome to In the Robe, today I’m your host, Ana Cardenas, Researcher and Director at the World Justice Project. Our focus today is Malaysia, as we look back on the tenure of a Chief Justice who became a defining voice for fundamental rights.

Judge Maimun, thank you for speaking with us. For the "person on the street," judicial independence can sound like a legal abstraction. How does your independence directly protect their life, their business, or their fundamental rights?

Justice Maimun binti Tuan Mat (Malaysia): I'll start with the right to life. Malaysian jurisprudence has developed in a way that the courts have recognized that the right to life would include the right to livelihood and right to a clean environment. So how does an independent judiciary affect their life? An independent judiciary has no fear to declare an unlawful arrest by the government. In a way, if a person is deprived of his right of livelihood through such an arrest, then the court would intervene and ensure that his right to livelihood is not impaired.

There is also a principle established by the courts, that a community is entitled to a clean environment, and that forms a part of their right to life. So ordinary people on the street can come to the court and ask for a suitable remedy if, for example, their public park has been designated by the government to be made a commercial center. In that way, an independent judiciary will ensure that their rights are protected.

An independent judiciary will also enforce contractual rights, when somebody enters a business negotiation and a contract has been breached. An independent judiciary would not fear, for example, if a contract has been entered against a state enterprise by a normal businessman; an independent judiciary will make sure that the disputes will be decided impartially. And, hence, the business and economic rights will be protected.

 

This really fleshes out the relevance of having an impartial arbiter when dealing with a contract, facing the government, or when upholding the extent of the right to life, including the clean environment.

Taking into account that in Malaysia, both civil and Islamic courts operate, and that these legal orders coexist. Could you share the main challenge you face as a Chief Justice in light of legal pluralism? Perhaps you could share an insight to other fellow judges on trying cases in a legally plural setting.

The biggest challenge is to navigate the jurisdictional conflicts between the Sharia and the secular civil setting.

I think the biggest challenge is to navigate the jurisdictional conflicts between the Islamic or Sharia setting and the secular civil setting. Because in Malaysia we have this plural legal system, the Sharia—or the Islamic system—is very limited in scope. Those systems only apply to Muslims over limited subject matters, namely personal law, for example, affecting marriage and divorce, maintenance, custody, guardianship, and so on. The rest of the population, including Muslims, will be subjected to the civil courts in all other matters: general criminal law, civil matters, and commercial matters.

The challenge is to navigate this conflict—or rather, purported conflict. Some people think that certain jurisdictions, which are actually demarcated or prescribed by the federal Constitution to belong to these civil courts, sometimes have been encroached by the Islamic courts. And when we decide the cases in the manner that is consonant with the federal Constitution, the judges are being accused of trying to undermine the Sharia court system. My insight is that whatever the public opinion is, and however the public sentiment is being incited, judges would always have to decide based on the law and the facts.

 

It's particularly interesting that you use the word navigate as opposed to something rigid, something applied to all cases, but rather like a constant gradient and dialog between legal orders.

So now, shifting our attention to the fact that the space traditionally held by men, as the first woman to serve as Malaysia's chief justice. Could you share the main challenge you faced? What advice would you share with other women who aim to pursue a judicial career as a female, or rather, the first female Chief Justice in Malaysia?

As the first female Chief Justice of Malaysia my challenge did not relate to my gender. The challenges are all related to my role and responsibility. You have to ensure that judges behave in a manner that is according to the Code of Ethics—how we are seen to decide cases impartially and dispense justice fairly. These challenges are applicable to all chief justices, regardless of their gender.

The job of a judge is daunting.

The job of a judge is daunting. We are under intense scrutiny. Insofar as public interest cases are concerned, the public will be looking at us. Some of them think they are better, more knowledgeable than judges and lawyers. With the advent of social media, comments are being made. We are under intense scrutiny and criticism. If we want to be on the bench, we must be strong and courageous to always do the right thing and decide impartially and remain steadfast, because our journey is full of challenges.

For women, I think however high we go up the career ladder, we will still be saddled with domestic responsibility. My advice would be for women to manage their time properly and be aware that competence is not dependent on gender. If you manage your time properly and if you discharge your responsibilities with courage and integrity, you will definitely succeed. I think this is also important: as a woman, you need to have the support of your family. Be aware, or rather, be good at managing domestic and professional duties.

 

Competence knows no gender and it's so powerful to hear it.

Taking a step back from Malaysia's very specific legal system, and bearing in mind the broader landscape across the globe where judicial independence is facing attacks and different pressures, could you share with us what is the most pressing or insidious threat you face in your specific jurisdiction right now?

I think this relates to the appointment and promotion of judges. In the past year, 2025, we have seen certain developments in the Malaysian judiciary which can pose a serious threat to judicial independence. The mechanism for the appointment of judges is prescribed by a specific law called the Judicial Appointments Commission Act, enacted in 2009. It appears that for the past year, the appointments have been made bypassing the act.

Judicial independence has to start from the appointment process. 

I think judicial independence would have to start from the appointment process. If the appointment process is seen not to be independent, or rather, with too much involvement by the executive, then that is a threat in itself.

 

A frequent criticism is that the judiciary can appear elitist, removed, or speak in a language that the public doesn't understand. In your view, what is the single most effective way a judge can bridge that gap and rebuild public trust? Can you share an example of a time you did something to be more 'proximate' or accountable to the people?

An effective way that we could bridge this gap between the judiciary and the public is by having effective communication and engagement with them. During my tenure, I specifically organized an event called a "meet and greet," or "up close and personal," where I invited the public to come to our office. Our office is called the Palace of Justice. We had closed and private sessions where I invited them to ask whatever questions that they have, whatever misunderstandings that they might have regarding decided cases which attracted intense public comments. They were allowed to ask me anything at all. And I will try to explain our decisions in a layman's term. 

They were allowed to ask me anything at all, and I tried to explain our decisions in layman's terms.

I had more than 20 sessions, involving various groups, including journalists, alumni, and of course, law students and teachers and various other groups, involving Sharia lawyers and civil lawyers. The feedback that I got from this initiative was that they could understand the judiciary better with the explanation given. From my part, I could see that some of the misconceptions against the judiciary and against our decisions could be dispelled.

 

Thank you so much for this example. I hope other judges in the world can replicate this great practice. Since we’ve been talking about direct dialogue: In 30 seconds, what is a misunderstanding about judges that you would like to change?

Sometimes people think that judges try to be supreme by declaring laws enacted by Parliament as invalid or declaring actions by the executive as illegal. That misunderstanding is seriously flawed, because what the judges are doing is simply to uphold the law. We are supposed to act as a check and balance against excesses by the executive and legislative.

If these two organs of government did something which is not consonant to the law, it is our responsibility and duty to correct their errors. I hope to correct that misunderstanding by, as I did during my term, engaging with the public.

 

Thanks again Judge Tengku Maimun for sharing all of these insights and lessons from Malaysia. You've been listening to In the Robe, I’m Ana Cardenas from the World Justice Project. Thank you for listening.