PETALING JAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said that his legal move to seek constitutional clarity was not an attempt to gain personal immunity or evade legal scrutiny but rather an effort to uphold the integrity of Malaysia’s constitutional system.
“This matter has never been about seeking personal immunity or escaping legal scrutiny.
ALSO READ: PM immunity: High Court denies Anwar’s request to refer legal questions to Apex Court
“It concerns the integrity of our constitutional system and the need to ensure that high public office is protected from litigation that may be strategically timed, politically motivated, or institutionally disruptive,“ he said in a statement posted on his Facebook and X.
Anwar also acknowledged that the High Court had dismissed his application to refer eight constitutional questions—including whether a prime minister is immune from lawsuits—to the Federal Court under Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution.
He also reaffirmed his commitment to uphold the law and explained that his move was to seek legal clarity on matters affecting the role and stability of individuals holding high public office.
“I remain fully committed to the rule of law, the independence of our courts, and the dignity of democratic governance. The legal process will continue, and I will continue to discharge my responsibilities without distraction or compromise.”
Earlier yesterday, the High Court dismissed Anwar’s application, which was linked to a civil suit brought by his former research assistant, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, over an alleged sexual assault that reportedly took place seven years ago.
Judge Roz Mawar Rozain made the ruling after finding that none of the articles of a Federal Constitution (FC) cited by Anwar’s legal team give rise to any real, substantial or justiciable question of constitutional law requiring determination by the Federal Court under Article 128(2) of the FC or Section 84 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
“From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,” she was quoted as saying by Bernama.
