Here S Why Anwar Must Step Down

---

 



This statement is made in my personal capacity as a citizen responsible to uphold the Federal Constitution.
I call upon Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to take an immediate leave of absence from his official duties or, as a matter of principle, offer his immediate resignation, pending the resolution of the civil suit filed against him by his former staff member, Yusoff Rawther.
As head of cabinet in a unity government, Anwar is mandated with exclusive power under Article 122 of the Federal Constitution in advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the appointments of the Federal Court judges, Court of Appeal judges and High Court judges.
The constitution provides that the Agong must accept the advice of the prime minister upon consulting the Conference of Rulers.
ADSApart from this, there are impending vacancies in (unless the tenure is extended by the Agong) the position of:
a) Chief justice
b) Court of Appeal president
c) Chief judge of Malaya
d) Chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak
The prime minister would play a crucial role in the appointment of (within the next few weeks) those vacancies mentioned above, as well as appointments/extensions of nine Federal Court judges, nine Court of Appeal judges and probably at least 12 High Court judges, not to mention judicial commissioners.
The fact that Anwar remains in this position while also a defendant before the same judicial system he helps shape is untenable and compromises the very institutional integrity he is supposed to protect.
Further, as head of the executive, he also advises the Agong on the appointment or extension of the inspector-general of police, whose term expires on June 22, 2025.
It must be noted that Yusuf alleged he was framed by the police in the criminal investigations and eventual charges levelled against him after Anwar’s appointment as the prime minister.
Anwar’s authority
Anwar's exclusive constitutional authority to recommend the appointments of almost three-quarters of the vacancies (which are pending and due) in the judiciary and the appointment of the IGP places him in direct and serious conflict of interest, particularly as he remains an active litigant in ongoing civil suits.
This duality fundamentally undermines the principles of natural justice and the separation of powers. By holding influence over the very institutions - the judiciary and the police - that are tasked with adjudicating and investigating matters in which he is personally involved, Anwar's position risks eroding public confidence in the impartiality of Malaysia's legal system.
ADSThis situation underscores the need for accountability. No individual should possess the power to shape the leadership of institutions responsible for holding them accountable.
What is especially alarming is the prime minister’s attempt to mislead the Malaysian public following the High Court’s June 4 decision to dismiss his application to refer questions of immunity to the Federal Court.
Instead of accepting the court’s decision with accountability, he deflected responsibility onto the judiciary - effectively inviting the courts to determine whether a civil suit compromises his capacity to govern or threatens constitutional order.
In doing so, he has made two dangerously misleading claims, which I quote directly from media reports:
a) “This matter has never been about seeking personal immunity or escaping legal scrutiny. It concerns the integrity of our constitutional system.”
b) “[It concerns] the need to ensure that high public office is protected from litigation that may be strategically timed, politically motivated, or institutionally disruptive.”
Let us be clear: Statement (b) is designed to manipulate public perception. Yusoff’s lawsuit predates Anwar’s appointment as prime minister. It is, therefore, factually inaccurate to portray this legal action as a politically timed or institutionally disruptive move targeting a sitting head of the cabinet.
By asserting that litigation against a public officeholder is inherently “disruptive”, Anwar reveals a dangerous conflation between personal legal accountability and institutional stability.
Worse, he tacitly admits that he is unable to discharge his responsibilities effectively while under legal scrutiny - which is precisely why he must take leave, not seek immunity.
Judiciary independence
In truth, it is not the civil suit that threatens public trust, but the prime minister’s refusal to step aside while under legal challenge - despite holding influence and sanctioned by the constitution to exercise exclusive power to advise the Agong over judicial appointments and government institutions.
This refusal raises grave concerns about the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, the credibility of the executive branch, and the principle of parliamentary accountability.
The prime minister’s fragile parliamentary footing - his party, PKR, holds only 31 seats, together with Pakatan Harapan, totalling 79 - compounds the problem. His government is sustained through cooperation with political rivals.
Maintaining leadership under these legal shadows risks destabilising the coalition and eroding public faith in governance.
Let it be stated unequivocally: no public official, including the prime minister, should be shielded from legal accountability through the misuse of institutional language or legal manoeuvres.
Seeking judicial protection while in power only reinforces the perception that the system is being twisted to protect one individual rather than serve the nation.
Taking leave or offering to resign would:
Reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law;
Protect judicial independence at a critical juncture;
Restore public confidence in the executive; and
Safeguard the unity and stability of Malaysia’s government.
- Mkini
P WAYTHA MOORTHY is the leader of the Malaysian Advancement Party and Hindraf. He is also a practising lawyer.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---