Anwar May Face Uphill Task To Set Aside High Court S Decision

---

 



The High Court judge has firmly held that a full-fledged trial involving a civil suit brought by Yusoff Rawther against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim will proceed on June 16.
However, the prime minister's lawyer sought to stay the same bid, pending an appeal against the court's decision to dismiss the defendant's application to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court.
It’s public knowledge that the prime minister sought to halt the civil lawsuit brought by Yusoff against the former, but with the latest decision, his attempt has been unsuccessful so far.
In a relatively bold decision, the High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain held that she had found Anwar’s aforesaid eight constitutional questions failed to meet the required threshold.
One of the primary constitutional questions ventilated by the defendant is whether he, as prime minister, would be entitled to immunity from civil suits. It seems that this question has sparked off public opprobrium, too.
Apart from the aforesaid issue, the prime minister had also tried to seek the apex court’s determination on whether, by allowing the lawsuit to proceed, it would compromise his ability to effectively perform his executive responsibilities, thus breaching the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
The high court had unequivocally rejected both questions and, in turn, ruled them to be untenable.
Contentious issues
I find it interesting that in dismissing the prime minister’s application, the learned judge sought to view all the contentious issues through a constitutional prism. This seems to be rare nowadays, despite the fact that our system is embedded under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
The judge, for instance, held, inter alia, “Article 8 of our Federal Constitution is a shield, not a sword for immunity. The provision guarantees equal legal treatment, not exemption from the law… it does not operate to immunise individuals from civil liberty. Rather, it ensures that all persons, including public office holders, are equally subject to the rule of law.”
Strong words indeed. The judge also dismissed the defendant’s argument, which is premised on constructive harm to the Prime Minister’s Office thus warrants constitutional immunity.
The judge found such an argument has “no textual or jurisprudential thesis”. The judge also reminded the defendant that nowhere in our apex law does it imply immunity for the prime minister from civil suits.
Ergo, the defendant’s legal team could not anchor the proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal text. In objecting to the defence of the immunity raised by the defendant, the plaintiff’s counsel averred that his client’s suit was brought against the defendant prior to his appointment as prime minister.
In fact, the plaintiff’s summons were filed on July 14, 2021, whereas the defendant was only officially appointed as the prime minister on Nov 24, 2022.
Be that as it may, the issue of immunity claimed by the prime minister, the plaintiff argued, does not hold any water. After all, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is premised on his personal capacity and not in his official capacity in exercising his official function.
Anyway, let us wait for the opinion of the appellate forum after this. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---