FORMER law minister Zaid Ibrahim’s recent call for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to step down while the Federal Court deliberates on a constitutional reference concerning civil immunity is not only premature, it is constitutionally incoherent and politically irresponsible. His suggestion undermines basic legal principles and reflects a troubling disregard for the separation of powers.

1.      Misunderstanding of constitutional reference procedure

Zaid’s commentary ignores the legal basis and function of the constitutional questions referred under Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. The Prime Minister has sought clarity on whether, in light of Articles 39, 40, and 43, civil litigation based on pre-office allegations — especially those pursued in a politically charged context — ought to be stayed to preserve executive function and constitutional balance. This is a legitimate legal question, not a ploy for evasion.

Seeking constitutional clarification is not an admission of guilt. On the contrary, it reflects institutional maturity — a willingness to submit the matter to the highest court to avoid any perception of political interference or judicial overreach. It is irresponsible to equate a lawful constitutional mechanism with an abdication of moral responsibility.

2.      No finding of criminal guilt, no basis for resignation

The Attorney-General’s Chambers, in January 2020, found insufficient evidence to support criminal prosecution against Anwar. There has been no conviction, no charge, and no fresh evidence since. In such circumstances, for Zaid to equate the situation to Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court immunity case is misleading. The Trump case involved active criminal proceedings. Anwar’s matter concerns an untested, rejected allegation revived through civil process years after the alleged event.

The idea that a Prime Minister should resign merely because of a private lawsuit — based on events prior to office and already classified NFA by the AG — is both disproportionate and destabilising. It invites malicious actors to weaponise litigation as a tool for political disruption, setting a dangerous precedent.

3.      Abuse of process and the need for threshold protection

Zaid ignores that Anwar’s application is not to permanently block the suit, but to ensure the High Court first conducts a threshold inquiry — whether the litigation is abusive, politically orchestrated, or incompatible with constitutional governance. This is not a shield from justice but a filter against the misuse of the legal process.

A constitutional officeholder must be protected — not from accountability — but from vexatious litigation timed to disrupt public duty. Article 8(1), the doctrine of separation of powers, and the principles of institutional proportionality demand no less.

4.      Judicial Independence is not compromised by legal clarity

Zaid claims that Anwar’s continued tenure places pressure on judges. This betrays a low view of the Judiciary. Judges are not so fragile that they require the PM’s resignation to do their job. If anything, submitting questions openly to the Federal Court enhances judicial independence by ensuring that high-stakes constitutional issues are settled transparently.

It is not evasion — it is constitutionalism in practice.

Conclusion

Zaid Ibrahim’s demand is not grounded in law, logic, or fairness. It is a political provocation disguised as legal wisdom. If we are to defend the rule of law, we must defend the right of every citizen — including the Prime Minister — to seek legal clarity, procedural fairness, and constitutional protection. Resignation is not a remedy for speculation. The courts must be left to do their work, and politicians should stop playing judge and jury in the court of public opinion.

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