The Malaysian Bar calls for serious consideration that Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad be reinstated as a functioning court. The building carries historical weight that cannot be replicated elsewhere, and the return of judicial functions would serve the public interest by preserving heritage, strengthening institutional identity and reconnecting the public with the nation’s legal history.
Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad was built between 1894 and 1897.1 It originally housed the British colonial administration. Following independence and constitutional development, the building took on a new chapter in national history. From around 1984 onwards, it became home to Malaysia’s then-Supreme Court (later the Federal Court).2 In 2003, the Federal Court was relocated to the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.3
For members of the Judiciary and the legal profession who worked there, Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad represents more than colonial architecture or old government space. It is where appellate practice matured, where foundational judgments were handed down, and where many lawyers built their careers. Its courtrooms, corridors and chambers remain part of the collective memory of the Malaysian legal system.
Returning judicial functions to Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad after a long interval would carry real meaning. First, it would reconnect the justice system with a site that once stood at the centre of the nation’s highest courts. Second, it would strengthen civic symbolism. The courts are constitutional organs whose presence should reflect dignity and permanence. Situating them within a building that forms part of the national consciousness reinforces that symbolism. Third, it would ensure that heritage buildings continue to serve institutional purposes rather than becoming static showpieces without living function.
There are international examples that demonstrate the value of such an approach. In Hong Kong, the building that originally housed the Supreme Court later became the Legislative Council Building for several decades. It has since been reinstated as the permanent home of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.4 The move balanced heritage conservation, public symbolism and judicial function. It showed that historic buildings, when properly planned and adapted, can resume their judicial role in a contemporary context without compromising security or efficiency.
Malaysia can adopt a similar philosophy. Urban planning and development must take heritage, identity and institutional continuity into account. Modern facilities are necessary, but they should not erase the physical anchors of our constitutional history. Many jurisdictions around the world preserve historic court buildings as active centres of justice, not static monuments.
The Malaysian Bar, therefore, urges the relevant authorities to undertake a structured feasibility review of reinstating court functions at Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad. Such a review should include structural assessment, security requirements, accessibility, heritage conservation considerations and long-term maintenance planning.
Reinstating the Judiciary in Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad would not be an exercise in nostalgia. It would acknowledge the continuity of our legal institutions, the dignity of the courts and the history that underpins Malaysia’s constitutional development. It would demonstrate that heritage buildings can continue to serve the nation in meaningful and enduring ways.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
27 January 2026
1 Heritage Series – Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad (BSAS). Roam This Way, retrieved 27 January 2026.
2 History of Kuala Lumpur Court, official portal of the State Court of Kuala Lumpur, retrieved 27 January 2026.
3 Supra note 1.
4 The Court of Final Appeal Building, Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, retrieved 26 January 2026.