WHEN high-stakes litigation involves the sitting Prime Minister, the stakes are not just legal — they are constitutional, political, and institutional. In such cases, the better path is not to press forward blindly and resolve problems only when they explode. The wiser approach is to ask hard questions early and seek judicial clarity before institutional damage is done.

That is precisely what the Prime Minister has done by invoking Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution. And it is why the criticism of his constitutional reference is misplaced.

Litigation Is Not Just About Winning — It’s About Preserving Stability

Let’s be clear: the civil suit brought by Muhammed Yusoff Rawther is no ordinary tort claim. It is:

Based on alleged conduct from October 2018, long before the Prime Minister assumed office;

Lodged more than a year later, via a statutory declaration in December 2019;

Subject to a police investigation, but ultimately dismissed by the Attorney General’s Chambers in January 2020 as “No Further Action”;

Revived as a civil claim in 2021 — and now proceeding while the Plaintiff himself is on remand, facing serious drug and firearms charges, with a High Court verdict due on June 12, 2025.

In short, this is a politically explosive suit brought by a compromised litigant, proceeding on allegations that the criminal justice system already deemed unworthy of prosecution. The civil process is being asked to do what the criminal process refused.

If this case proceeds without first answering whether the Constitution allows it to proceed, the result may be a full trial, extensive media coverage, and political fallout — only for a higher court to later decide that the suit should never have been allowed in the first place.

That is precisely what Article 128(2) exists to prevent.

A Reference Is Not a Delay — It’s a Safeguard

Opponents of the reference have called it a “delaying tactic.” That is incorrect, and frankly unfair. A reference is not about delay. It is about ensuring that a trial — if it proceeds — does so with constitutional legitimacy, not ambiguity.

In fact, it promotes judicial efficiency:

The High Court is spared from hearing a lengthy, politically sensitive trial if the Federal Court determines the case constitutionally improper.

The parties save resources, and the public is spared the spectacle of seeing the Prime Minister entangled in weeks of civil litigation with unclear legal grounding.

The courts avoid the reputational damage of being drawn into a politicised proceeding — only to have it overturned later.

In short, it is better to clarify now than to clean up later.

Institutional Harm Is Harder to Repair Than Legal Error

Legal errors can often be corrected on appeal. But institutional harm — to the Office of the Prime Minister, to the Judiciary, and to public confidence in the separation of powers — is much harder to undo.

If politically motivated civil suits can be used to:

Embarrass a sitting Prime Minister with stale allegations,

Force cross-examinations and discovery in matters already rejected by public prosecutors,

Distract national leadership from governance during periods of regional instability and economic pressure,

Then the entire structure of constitutional governance suffers.

By referring the matter now to the Federal Court, the Prime Minister is preventing a possible constitutional injury — not to himself, but to the system.

Precedent Matters — But It Must Begin Somewhere

Some critics have said, “No PM has ever done this before.” That’s true — but that’s exactly why it matters. Every constitutional principle begins with someone raising the issue. The MACC-Judiciary protocol created by the Federal Court was unprecedented too — until it wasn’t. When the Constitution is silent, the courts step in. That is how a constitutional democracy matures.

The PM is not breaking tradition. He is helping build the precedent that future Prime Ministers, courts, and the country will need.

Conclusion: This Is What Responsible Leadership Looks Like

The Prime Minister’s decision to refer these questions now — before trial, before media spectacle, before irreversible reputational damage — is a model of strategic, constitutionally grounded leadership.

It shows confidence in the Federal Court, prudence in statecraft, and restraint in politics.

It’s not about personal protection. It’s about protecting the system from being compromised by litigation that may look civil, but carries constitutional consequences.

Clarify now. Don’t clean up later.

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