Court bins Anwar's bid to suspend sexual assault lawsuit

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has denied Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s bid to suspend the civil lawsuit brought by Yusoff Rawther, who has accused him of sexual assault.

In delivering her ruling today, High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain also stated that the court had found the eight constitutional questions Anwar had sought to refer to the Federal Court did not meet the required threshold.

As such, she ordered that the trial proceed as scheduled on June 16.

“From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy… what is clear is that not every question touches on the constitutional qualities for referral under Section 84 of the Courts of the Judicature Act 1964. 

“This court must be satisfied that the constitutional questions are genuine and material to the resolution of this case, as the Federal Court is not a forum for speculative or defensive advisory opinions. 

“This court… is not satisfied, so the application to refer the proposed questions to the Federal Court is declined,” the judge ruled during proceedings today.

The judge also granted costs of RM20,000 to Yusoff, who had initiated the legal action in 2021 over claims that Anwar had sexually assaulted him at the PKR president’s office in October 2018.

Argument ‘untenable’

Anwar had sought to postpone proceedings for the civil lawsuit pending a Federal Court ruling on eight constitutional questions regarding whether he, as prime minister, is entitled to immunity from civil suits.

He had also attempted to seek the apex court’s determination on whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would compromise his ability to effectively perform his executive responsibilities and breach the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Roz Mawar said the court found “untenable” the defendant’s argument that exposure to civil litigation concerning alleged acts committed before assuming public office constitutes a deprivation of personal liberty, particularly where such litigation is accused of being vexatious or politically motivated.

She highlighted that Article 5 of the Federal Constitution on the right to life and liberty is engaged in cases involving unlawful detention and arrests, as well as state-sanctioned restrictions on physical liberty.

“It does not extend to mere inconveniences or reputational risks… by civil proceedings. The apparent fact is that the defendant remains at liberty without any containment of movement or legal capacity,” she added. 

Additionally, the court ruled that the submission by Anwar’s legal team based on Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution on equality before the law was “without merit”.

“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,” the judge said.

Noting that Anwar’s lawyers have not shown evidence of discriminatory conduct by the court, she pointed out that Yusoff’s suit was filed under the same laws applicable to all Malaysians and foreigners in the nation. 

“The defendant has not demonstrated that he is being denied legal protection afforded to others, or that any legal provision operates unequally against him.”

Referring to a mindmap produced by Anwar’s lawyers yesterday during the hearing for his stay applications, Roz Mawar said the depicted ideology of constructive harm to the Prime Minister’s Office that warrants constitutional immunity has “no textual or jurisprudential thesis”.

“No provision in our Federal Constitution implies immunity for the prime minister from civil suits. The defendant’s legal team could not clearly anchor this proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal text.

“The argument, at best, may be rooted in perhaps policy concerns rather than constitutional law,” she added.

Appeal can proceed, but so will trial

Following the judge’s decision, Anwar’s lawyer, Alan Wong, then submitted an oral application for the court to consider granting a stay while an appeal is filed to the Court of Appeal. 

Roz Mawar said that while the court will not prevent the defendant from filing an appeal, the High Court will not be postponing the trial as it has already found that there is no need for a referral to the Federal Court.

Wong’s co-counsel Rajasegaran Krishnan later told reporters that Anwar’s legal team will be filing an immediate appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s verdict, asserting that the matter involves far-reaching constitutional implications that warrant the apex court’s authoritative clarification.

“We will also be applying for a stay of trial proceedings to preserve the integrity of the appeal process and ensure that the defendant is not prematurely subjected to proceedings that may ultimately be held to be constitutionally impermissible,” he added.

---

- Mkini