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.
Roz Mawar also ordered Anwar to pay RM20,000 in costs to Yusoff.
The prime minister wanted the apex court to rule whether Articles 5(1), 8(1), 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.
In the application, filed by recently appointed solicitors Messrs Zain Megat & Murad, Anwar said the apex court must decide whether the suit would impair the effective discharge of his executive duties and undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
Roz Mawar said: “Court rulings on constitutional supremacy demands that all persons, including public office holders, are equally subject to the rule of law.”
She also said Article 5 of the constitution is only confined to unlawful detention and physical liberty and that civil litigation exposure did not constitute deprivation of liberty.
“The defendant (Anwar) remains at liberty with full legal capacity and procedural safeguards available,” she said.
As for Article 8(1), she said, equality before the law is only a shield, not a sword for immunity.
“The plaintiff’s (Yusoff) suit follows standard procedural and substantive law applicable to all persons,” she said.
She also said Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the constitution only allocated executive powers but did not confer personal immunity.
“Constitutional silence on immunity must be interpreted in favour of equal legal accountability,” she said, adding that these three articles cited were inoperative in the context of Anwar’s application for constitutional reference.
Roz Mawar said Anwar’s lawyers were misplaced in their reliance on the doctrine of “constitutional harm” as propounded in the case of Haris Fathillah, as that case concerned public law enforcement.
“Haris’s case affirmed accountability rather than immunity. It does not support the defendant’s call for a constitutional filter,” she said.
She said the defendant had affirmed readiness to proceed with the trial and there was no evidence that the suit impaired his ability to perform constitutional duties.
“As such, this court finds no special circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings,” she said.
Yusoff, a grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, claims he was assaulted at Anwar’s home in Segambut in October 2018.
He is seeking general, special, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Anwar denies the claim and has filed a countersuit.
Lawyers Megat Abdul Munir Megat Abdullah Rafaie, Alan Wong, Shahir Tahir, K Rajasegaran, Kavyaasrini Mahendran and Amin Faisal Azam appeared for Anwar while counsel Rafique Rashid Ali, Nurmustanir Nor and Amirul Ar-Rashid Azman acted for Yusoff.