THERE’S a reason heads of government across democracies are not treated like ordinary litigants. It’s not because they are above the law — but because their responsibilities are unlike anyone else’s. A Prime Minister governs in real time, making decisions that affect national security, economic stability, international diplomacy, and the daily lives of millions.

When politically timed civil suits are filed against a sitting Prime Minister — especially ones based on pre-office allegations already deemed unfit for prosecution — the question isn’t just legal. It’s constitutional.

The Prime Minister’s application to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court under Article 128(2) is not about escaping accountability. It is about ensuring that the office of Prime Minister can function without being paralyzed by litigation designed more to disrupt than to resolve.

This Is Not an Ordinary Lawsuit

Let’s not pretend this is a standard civil claim between two private citizens. The Plaintiff, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther:

Made his allegations in December 2019, more than a year after the alleged act.

Lodged a police report, which was investigated and ultimately classified as “No Further Action” by the Attorney General’s Chambers in January 2020.

Filed a civil suit in 2021, reviving allegations that had already failed the prosecutorial threshold.

Is now facing his own criminal trial for drug trafficking and firearms offences, with the High Court set to deliver its verdict on 12 June 2025.

And yet, this same Plaintiff is asking the civil courts to put the Prime Minister through the ordeal of discovery, cross-examination, and reputational assault — all while leading the government.

This is not civil justice. This is courtroom sabotage.

Governance Cannot Be Conducted from the Witness Box

No functioning democracy expects its leader to govern from the dock. The Prime Minister has pressing constitutional duties under Articles 39, 40, and 43 of the Federal Constitution. He is the primary link between the Cabinet and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. His time is not his own. It belongs to the nation.

Litigation is not passive. It is demanding. It requires legal strategy, public response, reputational defence, and psychological endurance. When those pressures are applied not to a private citizen, but to the head of government, the burden is not just on the individual — it’s on the system.

A Prime Minister distracted by civil trial over stale, politically coloured allegations risks losing focus on national duties. The cost is paid by the public, not just the defendant.

Legal Breathing Room Is Not Legal Immunity

The constitutional reference does not seek personal immunity. It seeks a judicial determination on whether the Federal Constitution, by necessary implication, requires a safeguard or threshold before allowing such suits to proceed.

Can a Prime Minister be subjected to damaging civil proceedings based on allegations from a time before he held public office?

Does Article 5(1) (right to personal liberty) or Article 8(1) (equality) protect against vexatious, credibility-deficient litigation designed to weaken national leadership?

Should the Judiciary impose threshold scrutiny to prevent politically timed legal actions from derailing the Executive?

These are not questions of personal preference. They are questions of constitutional design.

Other Democracies Recognise This Problem

Globally, jurisdictions have grappled with similar issues:

In South Africa, the Constitutional Court has held that while the President is not above the law, civil litigation must be evaluated in light of its effect on constitutional functions.

In the United States, courts recognise qualified immunity and doctrines like executive privilege — not to shield wrongdoing, but to protect the integrity of governance.

Even in the UK, civil actions against senior officials must be weighed carefully against the backdrop of institutional harm and political misuse.

Malaysia must now confront the same challenge: how do we protect public institutions from being neutralised through legal process that is abused for political ends?

The Courts Must Draw the Line

The Prime Minister’s application doesn’t ask the courts to silence the Plaintiff. It asks them to answer the right questions before damage is done.

This is not legal escapism. It is legal prudence.

The Judiciary, through Article 128(2), is being asked to act as the constitutional referee — to determine whether the nation’s top officeholder must be made to stand trial in a suit that bears all the hallmarks of political timing and reputational targeting.

Conclusion: Governance Requires Space, Not Shackles

The rule of law must always hold leaders accountable — but it must also protect the country from being governed through litigation instead of Parliament.

You cannot run a country from the dock. And the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that acknowledges this truth.

That is what the Prime Minister’s reference stands for — not immunity, but the integrity of public leadership. And in defending that principle, he is defending far more than himself. He is defending the system.

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