PM accused of stalling as court hears bid to pause sex assault suit
Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain
Published: Jun 3, 2025 6:14 PM
Updated: 9:01 PM
Summary
- Yusoff Rawther’s lawyer questions Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s last-minute application to stay a civil trial over alleged sexual assault, citing unjustified delays and lack of timely action.
- Rafique Rashid Ali argues that Anwar’s move, made just weeks before trial, undermines access to justice and equality before the law under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
- Anwar’s lawyer Alan Wong submits for judicial-like protections for the executive to ensure the prime minister can perform his duties without undue legal disruption.
The legal counsel of Yusoff Rawther, former aide to Anwar Ibrahim, questioned why the prime minister apparently delayed submitting an application to stay his client’s 2021 lawsuit.
Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali highlighted that the Kuala Lumpur High Court previously determined that the lawsuit on Yusoff accusing Anwar of sexual assault would go to trial on June 16.
He also submitted to the court today that access to justice should be available to everyone without affording special privileges to anyone in power.
“Irrefutably, what we all cannot deny is that the plaintiff (Yusoff) initiated the civil action on July 14, 2021, after which the defendant (Anwar) filed his defence and counter-claim on Sept 28, the same year.
kt asks: Wonder who was PM then?
“(Anwar) was made prime minister on Nov 24, 2022. The trial date has since been fixed, and yet the defence chooses, at the 11th hour, to change solicitors and file (the stay application) merely 23 days before the first day of trial.
“The eight questions of law have taken 912 days from Nov 24, 2022, to May 23, 2025,” Rafique told the court before High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain during proceedings today.
Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali
The stay application seeks to postpone proceedings for the civil lawsuit pending a Federal Court ruling on eight constitutional questions regarding whether Anwar, as prime minister, is entitled to immunity from civil suits.
Rafique highlighted that Anwar did not previously apply to strike out the lawsuit or even to amend his defence and counter-claim.
“It is a principle of law that when a litigant seeks the court’s intervention on a matter that affects his rights, he must do so (in a timely manner) - otherwise, the court may refuse relief to an indolent litigant.
“In all cases of delay, the burden is upon the litigant to render a satisfactory reason for it,” he added, noting that Anwar also “refused” to affirm two affidavits on his bid to refer the constitutional queries to the apex court.
It was previously reported that the affidavits were affirmed by Anwar’s lawyer, Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie.
Arguing that the affidavits do not explain the delays behind Anwar’s application, Rafique submitted that the prime minister’s action contravened Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all individuals.
Seeking immunity
In 2021, Yusoff filed a civil action alleging that Anwar sexually assaulted him at the PKR president’s office in October 2018.
Anwar is seeking a definitive ruling from Malaysia’s highest court on whether Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution provide him with qualified immunity against the legal action.
He is also asking the apex court to determine 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.
Anwar, who is also the finance minister, reportedly characterised the lawsuit as being founded on a “manufactured claim” and described himself as the target of “politically motivated reputational sabotage”.
His lawyer, Alan Wong, submitted to the court today that the legal protections afforded to the judiciary should be extended to the executive level to ensure the proper execution of their duties.
Referring to a previous constitutional reference on whether serving judges can be held liable for criminal investigations and prosecution, Anwar’s legal team said they intend to argue for the courts to establish a “constitutional filter” when cases involve members of the executive.
“Our concern is that a judicial crusade by way of a civil suit is being used (to) hinder the sitting prime minister from carrying out his functions.
“We are not seeking for ‘immunity’ in a narrow and absolute sense, (but) the inclusion of a legal requirement for threshold considerations in cases such as this (which is) tainted by political motivations and elements of abuse,” Wong added.
Ros Mawar is set to deliver her decision on Anwar’s application tomorrow.
Rafique highlighted that Anwar did not previously apply to strike out the lawsuit or even to amend his defence and counter-claim.
“It is a principle of law that when a litigant seeks the court’s intervention on a matter that affects his rights, he must do so (in a timely manner) - otherwise, the court may refuse relief to an indolent litigant.
“In all cases of delay, the burden is upon the litigant to render a satisfactory reason for it,” he added, noting that Anwar also “refused” to affirm two affidavits on his bid to refer the constitutional queries to the apex court.
It was previously reported that the affidavits were affirmed by Anwar’s lawyer, Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie.
Arguing that the affidavits do not explain the delays behind Anwar’s application, Rafique submitted that the prime minister’s action contravened Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all individuals.
Seeking immunity
In 2021, Yusoff filed a civil action alleging that Anwar sexually assaulted him at the PKR president’s office in October 2018.
Anwar is seeking a definitive ruling from Malaysia’s highest court on whether Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution provide him with qualified immunity against the legal action.
He is also asking the apex court to determine 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.
Anwar, who is also the finance minister, reportedly characterised the lawsuit as being founded on a “manufactured claim” and described himself as the target of “politically motivated reputational sabotage”.
His lawyer, Alan Wong, submitted to the court today that the legal protections afforded to the judiciary should be extended to the executive level to ensure the proper execution of their duties.
Referring to a previous constitutional reference on whether serving judges can be held liable for criminal investigations and prosecution, Anwar’s legal team said they intend to argue for the courts to establish a “constitutional filter” when cases involve members of the executive.
“Our concern is that a judicial crusade by way of a civil suit is being used (to) hinder the sitting prime minister from carrying out his functions.
“We are not seeking for ‘immunity’ in a narrow and absolute sense, (but) the inclusion of a legal requirement for threshold considerations in cases such as this (which is) tainted by political motivations and elements of abuse,” Wong added.
Ros Mawar is set to deliver her decision on Anwar’s application tomorrow.
Donald Fuck has been claiming immunity, now Bujuri making similar claims.
ReplyDelete