Malaysia court rejects Anwar's bid to pause sex assault suit
[KUALA LUMPUR] Malaysia's High Court rejected Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's bid to pause a civil suit by his former aide, who accused the leader of committing sexual assault in 2018.
High Court Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that the civil suit did not deprive Anwar of his liberty, and found no merit in arguments that he was being selectively targeted because of his office. She added that the federal constitution does not provide immunity for prime ministers.
Anwar's lawyer Alan Wong said they would appeal the court's decision. The trial is due to start on June 16.
The setback for Anwar comes years after earlier convictions for committing sodomy and abuse of power – charges which he denied. Those accusations, which Anwar said were politically motivated, came in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, when he was deputy prime minister until his dismissal from cabinet.
In the current case, the 77-year-old had sought a stay in proceedings as his lawyers seek a Federal Court ruling on whether a sitting prime minister can be sued.
Former aide Yusoff Rawther filed the suit in 2021, accusing Anwar of sexually assaulting him in October 2018 in the latter's residence in Kuala Lumpur. The alleged incident occurred before Anwar became prime minister in 2022. Yusoff is seeking special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business
Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Anwar wanted the Federal Court to determine whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would impair his ability to effectively discharge his executive duties and undermine the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, according to Wong.
Anwar's bid for immunity ahead of the sexual assault civil suit against him could hurt his credibility as the premier crosses the midpoint of his five-year term.
The case would have 'far-reaching effects on the rule of law in the country,' Zaid Ibrahim, who served as law minister in 2008, said in a Facebook post last week.
Civil society group Lawyers for Liberty said that any suggestion that Malaysia allows immunity for its prime minister from court actions is 'legal nonsense,' according to a May 30 statement. The group called on the Attorney-General to oppose any attempt to grant the prime minister immunity.
'This is not a concept that exists in any democratic country; it is a blatant violation of the rule of law and a flagrant feature of authoritarianism,' said Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek.
In September, Yusoff was arrested. He is on trial for charges of drug trafficking and possessing firearms, and faces life imprisonment and caning if convicted. He has denied any knowledge of the two fake pistols and cannabis that police said were found in his car, claiming that he was framed by people in power. BLOOMBERG
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Singapore Law Watch
7 hours ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses Source: Straits Times Article Date: 06 Jun 2025 Author: Grace Leong The court concluded that this was a case of 'a deep-seated fraud'. The Appellate Division of the High Court has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), is not liable to pay US$146 million (S$187.9 million) plus interest in compensation for losses suffered by the firm. In overturning a lower court ruling that found Goh was not entitled to relief from liability, the Appellate Division wrote: 'While we agree with the (High Court) judge that Dr Goh had breached the care duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show... that the breach caused the loss in question.' Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011 to Aug 12, 2019. The court clarified that 'it cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are telltale warning signs'. A 63-page ruling delivered on June 5 by Justice Kannan Ramesh, a judge of the Appellate Division, stated: 'A director may be a sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth, unless there are signs that would put him on inquiry.' The other two judges presiding were justices Tay Yong Kwang and Woo Bih Li. 'It does not follow that where a director has fallen asleep at the wheel, any or all losses occasioned to the company during the slumber should be vested on the director. Where the director has breached the duty of care, skill and diligence, the burden is on the company to prove that the breach has caused the loss suffered by the company,' the court ruled. Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi of TSMP Law Corporation, who represented Goh, noted that the latest decision is an important clarification on the law of the duties of directors. 'Dr Goh has always maintained that his conduct caused no avoidable loss to IPP, and we believe he has been vindicated. This is an important decision that has practical implications for all directors,' said Mr Thio, who acted for Goh with Ms Nanthini Vijayakumar, a partner of TSMP Law. Deloitte & Touche, IPP's judicial managers turned liquidators, had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director', and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions. IPP alleged that Goh failed to act reasonably in the face of three 'red flags' – an audit confirmation request signed by Goh specifying receivables allegedly owed by Mercuria Energy Trading to IPP, the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence, and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Goh and sent to Maybank. High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah had found that Goh was not entitled to relief from liability because of 'the egregiousness of his breaches of duty, chief among which was his ignorance as to IPP's cargo trading business' – a 'vehicle of fraud' that had 'disastrous consequences' for the company. 'It was through his combination of misfeasance and nonfeasance, in failing to even be aware of IPP's cargo trading business, that the fraudsters were able to use IPP's cargo trading business as a vehicle of fraud in the first place,' Justice Aedit said in his grounds of decision in July 2024. Goh had appealed against the ruling in February 2024 that found him liable for breach of director's duties and statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. In allowing Goh's appeal, the Appellate Division found that the three purported red flags IPP relied on 'were not in fact red flags that would have put Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered, and the loss thereby averted'. The court concluded that this was a case of 'a deep-seated fraud'. Although Goh was not aware of the cargo trading business, the court ruled that 'it does not follow that if Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have discovered the fraud and thereby put a stop to it'. The court ruled: 'There is no suggestion by IPP there were any, apart from the 'red flags', which we have concluded were not in fact red flags. Further, there was no allegation that the auditor and IPP's financial manager alerted Goh of any issues with the accounts, or that the monthly management accounts and financial statements suggested anything untoward. 'Thus, there is nothing to the point that if Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have exercised oversight in a manner which would have picked up the fraud and averted the loss.' Mr Thio said: 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and duties of care to a company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud. This acknowledges the complex commercial realities that directors often operate in.' Mr Terence Quek, chief executive of the Singapore Institute of Directors, noted that the High Court's decision 'was alarming to the general director community as it suggested that directors of all stripes can be held personally liable for losses caused by fraud committed by other directors'. 'That is likely to have caused concern to many executive and non-executive directors in MNC (multinational corporation) subsidiaries (and) family-owned companies,' he said. 'This decision provides much welcome clarity on the true scope of directors' duties in a private company. The ruling recognises that while directors must exercise care and diligence, they cannot be held personally liable for every act of misconduct – particularly when committed by others under difficult-to-detect circumstances,' he added. 'But the judgment is also sobering, as it recognised that Goh did breach his director duties.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 Print
CNA
a day ago
- CNA
Karnataka High Court conducts hearing into Bengaluru stampede
The High Court in the Indian state of Karnataka has conducted a hearing after a cricket celebration in the city of Bengaluru triggered a stampede. The counsel claims the incident was an act of criminal negligence, leaving 11 people dead and at least 30 injured. Rebecca Bundhun reports from Mumbai.
AsiaOne
a day ago
- AsiaOne
Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses , Singapore News
SINGAPORE — The Court of Appeal has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), is not liable to pay US$146 million (S$187 million) plus interest in compensation for losses suffered by the firm. In overturning a lower court ruling that found Goh was not entitled to relief from liability, the Appellate division of the High Court clarified that "it cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs. "A director may be a sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth, unless there are signs that would put him on inquiry," according to a 63-page ruling on June 5 delivered by Justice Kannan Ramesh, a Judge of the Appellate division. "While we agree with the (High Court) Judge that Dr Goh had breached the care duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show... that the breach caused the loss in question," the Appellate court said. Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011, to August 2019. Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi of TSMP Law Corp, who represented Goh, noted that the latest decision is an important clarification on the law of the duties of directors. "Dr Goh has always maintained that his conduct caused no avoidable loss to IPP, and we believe he has been vindicated. This is an important decision that has practical implications for all directors," said Thio, who acted for Goh with Nanthini Vijayakumar, a partner of TSMP Law. Deloitte & Touche, IPP's judicial managers turned liquidators, had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of "sleepwalking through his time as a director", and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions. High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah had found that Goh is not entitled to relief from liability because of "the egregiousness of his breaches of duty, chief among which was his ignorance as to IPP's cargo trading business" — a "vehicle of fraud" that had "disastrous consequences" for the company. Goh had appealed the ruling in February 2024 that found him liable for breach of director's duties and statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. In allowing Goh's appeal, the Appellate court found that the three purported red flags that IPP relied on "were not in fact red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered and the loss thereby averted." The Appellate court concluded that this was a case of "deep-seated fraud." Although Dr Goh was not aware of the cargo trading business, the court ruled that "it does not follow that if Dr Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have discovered the fraud and thereby put a stop to it". "There is no suggestion by IPP there were any, apart from the 'red flags', which we have concluded were not in fact red flags. Further, there was no allegation that the auditor and IPP's financial manager alerted Dr Goh of any issues with the accounts, or that the monthly management accounts and financial statements suggested anything untoward. "Thus, there is nothing to the point that if Dr Goh had been aware of the cargo trading business, he would have exercised oversight in a manner which would have picked up the fraud and averted the loss." the Appellate court wrote. Thio said: "Directors owe fiduciary obligations and duties of care to a company but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud. This acknowledges the complex commercial realities that directors often operate in." [[nid:702062]] This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
