Yusoff's counsel objects to Anwar's repeated change of lawyers in civil suit
Published: Jan 31, 2026 8:00 PM
Updated: Feb 1, 2026 12:19 PM
The lawyer for Yusoff Rawther has filed an objection to Anwar Ibrahim’s latest request for an extension to appoint a new counsel, accusing the prime minister of abusing the court process.
In the objection letter made available to Malaysiakini, Rafique Rashid Ali wrote that Anwar displayed a pattern of changing lawyers at the last minute.
Rafique claimed that Anwar’s team would then apply for an extension so that those new lawyers could file new written submissions.
Yusoff (above, right), who is Anwar’s former aide, had filed a civil suit against his former employer, accusing the latter of sexual assault. Anwar’s appeal against the suit is scheduled for hearing on March 4.
“We humbly object to the application for an extension and humbly ask the court to reject their application and maintain the dates for filing of submissions that have already been fixed.
“(This is) in the name of justice, procedural certainty, and to preserve the integrity of the court process,” Rafique said.
To strengthen his claim, Rafique listed a chronology of the times Anwar had changed lawyers from May 23 last year to Jan 30 this year.
He claimed that these episodes pointed to a “consistent pattern of delays that are strategic in nature”.
Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali
‘Unacceptable reason’
On May 23 last year, Anwar’s team had applied to change lawyers from Jeffrey Lee to Zaid Megat Murad.
Several months later in September, after the Court of Appeal had fixed dates throughout February to file and hear the appeal, Anwar filed a notice to change lawyers to the firm of William Leong & Co.
A month after this, Anwar filed another application to change his law firm from William Leong & Co to Christopher & Lee Ong.
“From the above chronology, it is clear that the appellant has repeatedly changed lawyers at different junctures of the proceedings, and at the last minute, while the court has already fixed dates,” Rafique wrote.
He argued that the rationale that these lawyers were “newly appointed” and needed more time to adapt to the case should not be accepted as “good cause”.
He also claimed that the repeated changes of law firms occurred over a short period, including on Friday, weekends, and days before the deadline to file submissions.
This pattern occurred after the dates for the hearings and filling of written submissions had been fixed, Rafique pointed out.
“The application for an extension at the last minute and repeatedly changing lawyers amounts to an abuse of the court process, a waste of the court’s time, and most importantly, it will clearly prejudice our client,” he said.
On May 23 last year, Anwar’s team had applied to change lawyers from Jeffrey Lee to Zaid Megat Murad.
Several months later in September, after the Court of Appeal had fixed dates throughout February to file and hear the appeal, Anwar filed a notice to change lawyers to the firm of William Leong & Co.
A month after this, Anwar filed another application to change his law firm from William Leong & Co to Christopher & Lee Ong.
“From the above chronology, it is clear that the appellant has repeatedly changed lawyers at different junctures of the proceedings, and at the last minute, while the court has already fixed dates,” Rafique wrote.
He argued that the rationale that these lawyers were “newly appointed” and needed more time to adapt to the case should not be accepted as “good cause”.
He also claimed that the repeated changes of law firms occurred over a short period, including on Friday, weekends, and days before the deadline to file submissions.
This pattern occurred after the dates for the hearings and filling of written submissions had been fixed, Rafique pointed out.
“The application for an extension at the last minute and repeatedly changing lawyers amounts to an abuse of the court process, a waste of the court’s time, and most importantly, it will clearly prejudice our client,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment