4 days ago
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity.
It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right.
A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit.
A defendant is the party sued.
It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added)
When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights.
Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.
Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.
Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added)
Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials.
Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia?
That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court.
Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'.
But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
