Latest news with #qualifiedImmunity
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
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.
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
Anwar loses bid to refer Yusoff Rawther's suit to apex court
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim wanted the apex court to rule whether Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by a former research assistant. (Bernama pic) KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court here has dismissed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer eight legal questions arising from a civil suit filed by a former research assistant to the Federal Court. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain said the questions posed by the prime minister failed to cross the threshold set out in Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. 'None of the articles cited in the Federal Constitution, as argued by the defendant's lawyers, gave rise to any real, substantial and justiciable questions of law that require a determination by the Federal Court,' she said. Roz Mawar said the trial of Yusoff Rawther's suit will begin at 9am on June 16 as scheduled, rejecting an application by Anwar's lawyer, Alan Wong, for a stay pending appeal. 'Sorry, my hands are tied,' she said, adding that Anwar could file an application for a stay in the Court of Appeal. The prime minister wanted the apex court to rule whether Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution grant him qualified immunity from a suit filed by Yusoff four years ago. The suit relates to events which allegedly took place before Anwar took office on Nov 24, 2022. MORE TO COME
