WE often associate judicial abuse with criminal prosecutions — selective charges, rushed investigations, and media trials. But there’s another, quieter threat that is growing across democracies: the weaponisation of civil litigation.

This is no longer hypothetical. Globally, political actors, activists, and vested interests are turning civil suits into a strategy of attrition — targeting elected leaders with claims designed less to secure justice than to drain time, credibility, and focus. These suits are launched not to win on merit, but to occupy the headlines and the courts.

Malaysia now finds itself at this constitutional crossroads. And the Prime Minister’s reference to the Federal Court under Article 128(2) is a crucial test: will we allow our civil courts to become political battlegrounds, or will we reinforce the constitutional barricades that protect public governance?

When Courts Are Used to Wage Political War

The civil suit filed by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther is a textbook example of this global trend:

The Plaintiff’s complaint was investigated and classified as “No Further Action” by the Attorney General in January 2020.

His civil suit was filed in 2021, reviving the same allegations — this time in a format that allowed cross-examination, discovery, and public scrutiny, even in the absence of a viable prosecution.

The suit is now scheduled to proceed while the Plaintiff is on remand for drug trafficking and firearms offences, with his verdict due 12 June 2025.

This is not ordinary litigation. It is trial by legal ambush, timed to intersect with political cycles, media narratives, and the operational demands of national leadership.

This is how the battlefield is shifting — not in Parliament, but in court.

Civil Courts Were Never Meant to Function This Way

The Judiciary is meant to resolve disputes, not host proxy wars. But the more our courts are used to serve political vendettas, the greater the risk that:

 Public confidence erodes, especially when weak or stale claims are aired without constitutional filtering;

 The separation of powers is distorted, as the Judiciary becomes a staging ground for undermining the Executive;

 Governing becomes litigation-driven, with national leaders forced to spend time, resources, and political capital on defending suits that have no criminal merit.

This is not accountability. This is disruption disguised as due process.

Other Democracies Have Faced the Same Challenge

Malaysia is not alone in this. Around the world, civil suits have been used to weaken or immobilise political leaders:

In India, PILs and private torts have been strategically filed against sitting ministers during sensitive policy cycles.

In the United States, litigation tactics — including discovery-heavy suits — have been used to derail campaigns and damage presidential credibility.

In Israel, courts have been drawn into sustained constitutional standoffs involving politically tinged litigation, blurring the line between law and politics.

The lesson is simple: constitutional courts must act early to set boundaries — not wait until the process is irreparably weaponised.

The PM’s Reference Is a Constitutional Barricade

The Prime Minister’s application to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court is not about personal protection. It is a request to clarify whether the Constitution contains an implied structural safeguard — one that prevents the Judiciary from being misused as a political theatre against sitting Prime Ministers.

The questions raised include:

 Whether courts should conduct threshold screening to prevent abuse of civil suits filed in politically charged contexts;

 Whether the continuation of civil proceedings based on pre-office conduct, prosecuted in a political climate, violates Articles 5(1), 8(1), or the doctrine of separation of powers;

 Whether such litigation, if allowed without constitutional filter, undermines the basic structure of democratic governance.

If the answer is yes — even partially — then the courts must reinforce the barricades.

The Stakes Are Higher Than One Case

This is not about one Prime Minister or one plaintiff. If this kind of suit succeeds — not in court,but in politics — it will become the new normal. The message will be clear: if you can’t beat a Prime Minister at the ballot box, sue him into silence.

That is not what civil courts are for. And if the Federal Court does not draw the line now, it may be too late to draw it later.

Conclusion: Guard the Judiciary by Guarding the Constitution

Let us not wait for more political lawsuits, more compromised plaintiffs, or more institutional damage. Let us recognise that civil courts must not be turned into platforms for political subversion. The constitutional reference before the Federal Court is an invitation to protect both the Judiciary and the Executive from misuse of legal process.

This is not about keeping leaders above the law.

It’s about keeping the law above manipulation.

And if we believe in the rule of law, that’s a barricade worth building.

*The author is an experienced legal practitioner who frequently engages in legal discourse