WE often hear the phrase, “No one is above the law.” It’s a foundational principle of democratic governance — and rightly so. But there’s a second part to that equation that too many forget: no one should be beneath its protection either.

This includes the Prime Minister. Especially when he is facing civil litigation that is not only politically timed, but factually compromised and legally questionable. The rule of law, if it is to mean anything, must also be capable of protecting the institutions of government from abuse of process masquerading as accountability.

That’s the context behind the Prime Minister’s constitutional reference to the Federal Court. And that’s why it should be commended, not condemned.

The Rule of Law Is Not Just About Prosecution — It’s Also About Protection

The Prime Minister is not asking to avoid legal scrutiny. He is asking the courts — through the proper constitutional mechanism under Article 128(2) — to determine whether there are structural safeguards in the Federal Constitution that shield a sitting Prime Minister from:

Litigation based on alleged private conduct before he assumed office;

Suits that were rejected by prosecutors after investigation;

Proceedings that are politically charged, reputationally damaging, and institutionally disruptive;

Plaintiffs who are themselves under criminal trial and remand for drug trafficking and firearms offences.

That is not an argument for privilege. It is an argument for constitutional proportionality — the idea that the legal system must protect democratic functions from being hijacked by litigation weaponised for political effect.

There Is a Real Risk of Process Being Abused

Let’s be honest. Not all lawsuits are about truth. Some are about timing.

This suit was filed years after the alleged incident. It was preceded by a police report in 2019, and then a statutory declaration — both of which were investigated and found unworthy of criminal prosecution by the Attorney General’s Chambers in 2020. The decision: No Further Action (NFA).

And yet here we are — in 2025 — with the same Plaintiff pursuing a civil claim while being on remand awaiting a criminal verdict for drug and firearms charges. The trial date in that case? 12 June 2025.

The motive is self-evident. This is not justice. This is political litigation dressed up as a civil claim.

The rule of law cannot allow itself to be used in this way — or it loses its legitimacy.

The Constitution Must Be Able to Filter Out Abuse

The Prime Minister’s reference application does not ask for blanket immunity. It asks whether the Constitution:

Implies a threshold filter for politically sensitive claims that could disrupt executive functions;

Requires courts to consider whether a suit against the Prime Minister is vexatious, reputationally malicious, or devoid of prima facie merit;

Recognises that certain civil proceedings, if allowed without safeguards, can amount to a constructive removal of the Executive through public trial by ambush.

This is not a demand for unchecked power. It is a call for constitutional structure — the same kind of structure that the Federal Court adopted in the MACC-Judiciary cases, where it created a protocol to prevent investigative overreach against sitting judges. If judicial independence requires protection, so too does executive stability.

The law cannot protect only one arm of government from strategic disruption. It must protect all.

A Litmus Test for Our Constitutional Maturity

This moment is bigger than one case. It is a litmus test for whether we, as a constitutional democracy, understand that the rule of law is not simply a sword for cutting down power, but also a shield for preserving the institutions we depend on.

We cannot say “everyone is equal before the law” and then pretend that politically timed, credibility-challenged lawsuits against national leaders are somehow unproblematic. The law must protect both the right to sue and the right to govern.

That’s the balance the Prime Minister is asking the courts to strike.

Conclusion: The Rule of Law Must Defend the System Too

In the end, the Prime Minister is not running from the courts — he is turning to them. He is asking the highest constitutional forum in the land to decide whether the law offers any safeguard against being politically sabotaged through a flawed civil suit.

That is not an abuse of law. It is a defence of it.

The rule of law must cut both ways — to hold power accountable, yes, but also to protect power from being destroyed by tactics that have nothing to do with truth or justice.

Let the Federal Court decide. That’s how the rule of law is meant to work.

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