Anwar's bold and conflicted bid for legal immunity
KUALA LUMPUR – In the corridors of Malaysian power, the language of justice often changes depending on who is speaking — and who is being spoken about.
Several years after alleging Anwar Ibrahim sexually assaulted him in a private residence in Segambut, Yusoff Rawther's civil suit has reached a legal crescendo — just as Anwar, now prime minister, seeks to halt the case by invoking what he calls a 'qualified immunity.'
But this is no ordinary courtroom drama. It is a test of institutional resolve, of whether Malaysia's judiciary can still call to account the most powerful office in the land.
The story began on October 2, 2018. Yusoff, then a young research assistant, claimed he was assaulted by Anwar, the man then touted as Malaysia's next prime minister. In December 2019, he went public, took a polygraph test and filed a police report, but no criminal charges followed.
By July 2021, Yusoff took matters into his own hands by launching a civil suit against Anwar. The High Court refused to strike it out, sending the case toward trial. Then came a twist: Yusoff was arrested in September 2024 with imitation firearms and over 300 grams of cannabis.
His defense insists he never entered the car where the contraband was found, never had control over it and was immediately handcuffed outside. Three prosecution witnesses appeared to support that view. If he was being framed, as his lawyers claim, the motive was as political as it was personal.
On May 27, 2025, Anwar made a move no Malaysian prime minister has made before. He applied to the Federal Court to be granted immunity — not for his actions as a sitting prime minister, but for something alleged before he took office.
The timing is curious. The civil suit is scheduled for trial on June 16. The Chief Justice, Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat — known for her judicial independence — retires in June.
And Anwar's new legal team, appointed just days before, rushed to file their applications to postpone the trial and elevate the question of immunity to the highest court.
Critics note that even Malay royalty do not enjoy such blanket protection — they are answerable in a Special Court. Anwar's attempt to shield himself, they argue, goes beyond what any prime minister before him, not even Najib Razak at the height of the 1MDB scandal, ever dared to seek.
And therein lies the rub. Anwar, the man once imprisoned and persecuted by the very system he now leads, is asking that same system to silence a voice calling for justice.
The bigger issue is, if we accept this logic, then any citizen can be denied their right to be heard in court, depending on who the defendant is. Indeed, Article 8 of Malaysia's Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Immunity — real or rhetorical — flies in the face of this principle.
Anwar frames his application as protection for the Office of the Prime Minister from 'abuse of legal process.' Yet the suit is personal, the alleged incident predates his premiership and the plaintiff is an individual, not a rival party or political movement.
This is no frivolous Twitter/X spat. This is about whether the nation's highest office can become a fortress of impunity.
On May 29, Perikatan Nasional's whip, Takiyuddin Hassan, urged the Attorney General to intervene — not to side with any party but to protect the Constitution from what he called a 'dangerous judicial precedent.' He noted that Articles 181–183, which govern immunity, were crafted for Malaysia's monarchs, not its ministers.
There is speculation, too, about timing and motive. Why is Anwar seeking constitutional cover only now? Is it a strategic bet on the post-Tengku Maimun judiciary? Or a preemptive strike to prevent cross-examination in open court?
The deeper paranoia relates to Rafique Rashid, a relatively young legal figure who is central to both Anwar's feud with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and this case with Yusoff. What does Rafique know that so rattles the nation's now most powerful man?
This saga is not just about legal technicalities or political strategy. It is about the moral soul of a 'reformasi' movement that promised accountability, transparency and the rule of law.
Anwar once stood in prison and declared the system broken. Today, seated in Putrajaya, he asks that same system to shield him. In doing so, he risks becoming the very caricature his younger self once fought against.
In the coming weeks, Malaysia's judiciary will be called to choose between precedent and power, between access and exclusion, between immunity and accountability.
As Malaysia positions itself as a stabilizing force in ASEAN — mediating conflicts in Myanmar, projecting soft power in Palestine and countering great-power rivalry in the South China Sea — its domestic credibility matters more than ever.
A nation that cannot resolve its own crises transparently cannot lecture others on justice. A prime minister who claims global moral leadership must not seek local legal exemption.
This case, in its quiet courtroom battles and explosive political undertones, will be remembered not just for what was said under oath, but for what it revealed about the state of Malaysia's democracy.
Amir Al Fateh is an independent journalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, specializing in political analysis, governance and civil liberties. He is a verified contributor to Newswav and his work has been featured in MalaysiaNow and Utusan Malaysia. His professional portfolio is accessible via on his Muck Rack profile .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
2 days ago
- HKFP
Man under post-jail supervision order files legal challenge after being blocked from leaving city to study abroad
A Hong Kong man under a post-prison supervision order after being convicted of 2019 protest offences has filed a legal challenge against authorities for barring him from leaving the city to study abroad. To Kai-wa on Wednesday filed an application for a judicial review at the High Court against the Correctional Services Department's (CSD) decision, which blocked him from leaving Hong Kong during his post-release supervision, according to local media reports. Judicial reviews are considered by the Court of First Instance and examine the decision-making processes of administrative bodies. Issues under review must be shown to affect the wider public interest. To, who was jailed for five and a half years in 2021 for biting off part of a police officer's finger during a protest, was released from prison on October 25, 2024. But he remained under the CSD's supervision order, which is effective until August 26, 2026. He applied in January this year to the CSD's Supervision Case Review Committee to leave for the UK after receiving a conditional offer to study law at the University of Birmingham. But the committee rejected To's application in April and later rejected his appeal. According to To's court filing, the CSD's committee said To did not 'demonstrate sincere remorse and reflection' and had not undergone 'full rehabilitation and deradicalisation.' The committee also said that since To holds a British National (Overseas) (BNO) passport, he could apply for British citizenship during his studies there and abscond from the supervision of Hong Kong authorities. The committee said the British government had interviewed a person who was wanted for endangering national security and breaching a supervision order, an apparent reference to pro-independence activist Tony Chung, who fled to the UK in December 2023 while he was under post-release supervision. Chung, formerly the convenor of the now-disbanded pro-independence group, was sentenced to three years and seven months in jail in 2021 after pleading guilty to inciting subversion and money laundering. He is among 19 overseas activists wanted by Hong Kong police for alleged national security offences. The committee said it believed that the British authorities would not extradite To back to Hong Kong in the case of him breaching his supervision order. It said To could remain in Hong Kong to study instead of going abroad. In his court filing, To's lawyers said the committee's decision had excessively restricted To's freedom of movement protected under the law. They argued that studying law abroad would improve To's understanding of the rule of law, and therefore would contribute towards the protection of national security and his rehabilitation. To was not admitted into law programmes in the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong, whereas the City University of Hong Kong had yet to inform him of his application results, his lawyers said. That means To may not be able to study law if he has to stay in Hong Kong, they added. The lawyers also argued that To's BNO status and the case of a breach of supervision order by another person were irrelevant considerations for the CSD in To's case. They asked the court to handle the application before August 22 so that To could confirm his enrolment at the university before September 4.
AllAfrica
3 days ago
- AllAfrica
Controversy brewing over Malaysia's top judge appointments
As the calendar inches toward June 30, the date marking the retirement of Malaysia's Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the nation is gripped by an intensifying judicial drama. Instead of a seamless transition, the top echelon of Malaysia's judiciary is overshadowed by uncertainty and deepening controversy. Under Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, a federal court judge may serve until the age of 66, with the possibility of a six-month extension granted by the king. This extension, a routine administrative procedure in previous transitions, has yet to materialize for Tengku Maimun. The silence has been deafening—and perplexing. Even more curious is the fact that her presumed successor, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, also faces mandatory retirement on July 2. Yet he, too, has not received any confirmation of extension. The next most senior judge, Federal Court Justice Nallini Pathmanathan, due to retire in August, is likewise in limbo. At present, only Chief Judge of Malaya, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, has received a service extension, allowing her to remain in position until November. This leaves Malaysia, for the first time in its legal history, staring down the prospect of simultaneous vacancies in its top two judicial posts without any formal indication of succession. This vacuum has sparked feverish speculation. The name Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh—former Attorney General and recently appointed Federal Court judge—has surfaced as a likely candidate. His ascent has raised eyebrows, not least because his judicial appointment was made on the advice of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and also due to his relatively junior status. The proximity of Terrirudin's elevation to the expiration of terms for senior judges has fueled certain speculation that his appointment may be a political maneuver. The process, which constitutionally involves the prime minister advising the king, has drawn sharp criticism due to Anwar's unresolved legal entanglements. Indeed, Anwar stands as the only sitting prime minister in Malaysia's history with an active personal lawsuit—filed by Yusoff Rawther, alleging sexual misconduct. The unresolved nature of this civil case creates what many legal minds argue is an unavoidable conflict of interest in any executive role he plays in judicial appointments. This concern is not hypothetical. Former Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has publicly cautioned against straying from established seniority traditions, warning that bypassing more experienced judges may erode the judiciary's institutional stability and morale while straining the doctrine of separation of powers. The controversy has deepened with revelations of internal discord within the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Tensions reportedly escalated in a recent JAC meeting following the questioning of a senior judge—later revealed to be Ahmad Terrirudin—over allegations of interference in judicial appointments. The situation reached a crescendo when a police report was lodged against a journalist probing these leaks, further fueling concerns over press freedom and transparency. These events catalyzed the formation of a cross-partisan body, the Secretariat to Defend the Judiciary, spearheaded by former minister and Hindraf leader Waytha Moorthy, alongside Rawther's lawyer, Rafique Rashid. The roundtable they convened on June 23 brought together an improbable coalition of political veterans—Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Muhyiddin Yassin, Rais Yatim, Zaid Ibrahim, Takiyuddin Hassan, and Dr P Ramasamy—who set aside past rivalries in defense of judicial independence. Their joint declaration outlined six demands, notably the urgent need for judicial appointments to be based strictly on merit, integrity and seniority, and for the prime minister to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Most strikingly, they called for Anwar to take a leave of absence until his court case is resolved. This extraordinary convergence of former adversaries underlines the gravity of the moment. Malaysia stands at a constitutional crossroads. The stakes are high—not merely in terms of who will occupy the judiciary's top posts, but whether the nation can preserve its legal integrity amid executive encroachment. Observers have also drawn comparisons with Prime Minister Anwar's recent controversial decision to appoint Thailand's former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra—himself facing unresolved legal proceedings in his home country—as his personal adviser in ASEAN affairs. That appointment raised international eyebrows and domestic criticism, casting doubt over Anwar's commitment to principles of transparency and accountability. More recently, Anwar's image has been further dented when he became the first sitting prime minister in Malaysian history to seek legal immunity from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Yusoff Rawther. Although the court has dismissed the immunity request, Anwar's legal team is reportedly planning to appeal the decision. This move has fueled additional scrutiny over the prime minister's respect for due legal process and intensified public debate over his impartiality in overseeing judicial matters. So, why the delay in naming Tengku Maimun's successor? Why elevate Ahmad Terrirudin despite his controversial standing? And crucially, is this a calculated consolidation of power by a prime minister still fighting personal legal battles? What happens in the coming days will set a precedent not just for Malaysia's judiciary but for the state of the nation's democracy. The judiciary, long regarded as the last line of defense in upholding the rule of law, now finds itself under unprecedented scrutiny. Will institutional integrity hold firm, or will political expediency prevail? The answers, or lack thereof, may chart the course of Malaysian democracy for years to come.
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong appeal court rejects early release for first security law challenger
The first person to mount a legal challenge against Hong Kong's domestic national security law has lost an appeal to overturn a decision barring his early release from prison. Advertisement The Court of Appeal ruled in a judgment delivered on Tuesday that the Correctional Services Department was not obliged to consider granting an early discharge to Adam Ma Chun-man after he was 'lawfully' sentenced to a term of imprisonment for inciting secession. The three presiding judges stressed that any sentencing reduction was discretionary and that denying a prisoner's early release would not violate his right to liberty. The court also rejected the appellant's contention that the definition of national security was 'inherently vague' and prone to 'subjective value judgment', saying a broad definition offered 'flexibility' to allow the notion to 'evolve with time and adapt to changing realities'. 'It is broadly framed for good reasons,' Chief Judge of the High Court Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor, the judgment's author, wrote. Advertisement 'Although it is broadly framed, the definition has a sufficiently and clearly formulated core to enable a person, with advice if necessary, to understand what national security covers and to regulate his conduct accordingly.'
