[UPDATED] Court of Appeal grants Anwar temporary stay in Yusoff Rawther case

New Straits Times

a day ago

PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has succeeded in obtaining an ad interim order (temporary stay) of trial proceedings in a sexual assault suit filed against him in 2021 by former research officer Muhammed Yusoff Rawther.
This means the trial, scheduled to begin on June 16, along with all related proceedings, will be suspended until the full hearing of the stay application on July 21.
A three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Datuk Supang Lian unanimously granted the ad interim order after hearing submissions from Anwar's lawyer, Alan Wong, and Yusoff's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali.
"We are of the considered view that under Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act, we are empowered to make an ad interim order to preserve the integrity of the appellant's (Anwar) stay application pending the disposal of the appeal.
"Accordingly, we hereby make an ad interim order to stay all proceedings, including full trial at the High Court pending the disposal of the appellant's stay application," she said in her decision today.
The other judges were Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin.
Anwar's application to stay trial proceedings came after Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain rejected his bid to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court on the immunity of a prime minister from a civil suit.
Roz Mawar had also dismissed Anwar's lawyer, Datuk Seri Rajasegaran Krishnan's oral application to stay trial proceedings.
Sept 2 was set for case management for the appeal against Roz Mawar's decision that rejected Anwar's referral application to the Federal Court.
Earlier, Wong submitted that if a stay on trial proceedings was not allowed, the referral application to the Federal Court would be nugatory.
"It is important for the Federal Court to consider the eight constitutional questions as it delves into whether constitutional safeguards are to be implied to protect the functions, institutions and the integrity of the prime minister's office," he said.
He said if the trial went on, Anwar, as the sitting prime minister, would be required to divert attention and resources to the proceedings, which would disrupt the business of the government for seven days.
Wong argued that there would be no prejudice and irreversible harm to Yusoff if the trial were deferred, as his claims for monetary damages could still be compensated.
"But for the appellant (Anwar) and the public office he holds, which is inseparable, the consequences will be real, irreversible and constitutionally significant.
"On the other hand, the prejudice to the function and office of the prime minister cannot be compensated in any way.
"It cannot be redressed or addressed if the trial proceeded without an appeal being heard or even the Federal Court considering the constitutional questions," he said.
In a rebuttal, Rafique argued that the trial dates were fixed a year ago and that Anwar knew very well he was due in court from then.
He said the trial would not impair Anwar's capability to carry out his functions as the prime minister.
"The prime minister had more than enough time to prepare for this trial, knowing very well that everyone has to submit to the court system.
"The trial must proceed, and there is no reason to delay it. When the High Court declined to allow such a stay, it underscored that there is no compelling or special circumstance in this matter.
"Moreover, his referral application came 23 days before the trial was supposed to start.
"The application to refer to the eight constitutional questions is doomed to fail as they are rhetorical and there is no chance for success," he said.
Roz Mawar, in her decision, ruled that Anwar's referral application on the eight constitutional questions was speculative and did not meet the requirements under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
Anwar had sought the apex court to rule whether Articles 5,8,39,40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from Yusoff's suit.
He had asked the court to decide whether Yusoff's suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
Anwar had also requested the court to consider whether the lawsuit impacts his ability to carry out executive duties and undermines the principle of separation of powers guaranteed by the constitution.