KUALA LUMPUR (June 4): Lawyers for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim plan to appeal against the High Court's decision on Wednesday to dismiss their client's application to refer questions about the immunity of a sitting prime minister in civil suits to the Federal Court.
Lead counsel Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran said while they respect the High Court’s ruling and the decision by judge Roz Mawar Rozain, they disagreed with it.
"The eight questions raised were not abstract or academic — they concerned serious and unresolved constitutional issues, including the protection of executive function, the risk of politically motivated litigation, and the scope of Articles 5(1), 8(1), 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution," Rajasegaran told reporters at the courthouse following the High Court's decision.
"This matter involves far-reaching constitutional implications that warrant authoritative clarification from the apex court," he said.
Hence, Anwar's team will file an immediate appeal against the High Court's decision with the Court of Appeal, along with a certificate of urgency.
"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," Rajasegaran said.
The High Court's decision on Wednesday means that the sexual assault suit, filed by Anwar's former research officer Muhammad Yusoff Rawther in 2021, is still scheduled to begin on June 16, as Roz Mawar also refused an oral application from Anwar's team for a stay of proceedings.
Anwar's lawyers had previously indicated during Tuesday's proceedings that the PKR president was prepared to face the trial.
Rajasegaran stressed that the constitutional questions "go beyond the facts of this case", adding "they touch on the limits of legal process, the dignity of high public office and the structural safeguards embedded in our constitution."
In the brief grounds of her decision on Wednesday, Roz Mawar ruled that Anwar's application did not meet the threshold for referral to the apex court.
"This court is not satisfied that the statutory threshold under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act is met. The questions posed are speculative, not necessary to the disposal of this case, and do not concern the interpretation or validity of any constitutional provision," she stated.
Regarding Article 8(1) concerning equality before the law, the judge noted that Muhammad Yusoff's suit follows standard procedural and substantive law applicable to all persons.
"Article 8 is a shield not a sword to immunity subject to rule of law. Hence, no genuine or arguable issue as to the interpretation or application of Article 8(1) arises to warrant a referral [to the apex court]," Roz Mawar concluded.