Takiyuddin Hassan’s recent statements about the Prime Minister’s constitutional reference to the Federal Court are legally inaccurate, politically misleading, and institutionally irresponsible. His claims deserve a clear and firm rebuttal based on the rule of law.
No “Backdoor Immunity.” This Is a Proper Constitutional Process
The accusation that the Prime Minister is seeking immunity through a backdoor mechanism is entirely without merit. In reality, the Prime Minister is using the very process laid out in the Federal Constitution under Article 128(2). That provision exists precisely to allow the Federal Court to determine important constitutional questions.
This is not an effort to avoid scrutiny. It is a proper and transparent step to clarify whether a civil suit involving pre-office allegations can proceed against a sitting Prime Minister. The claim in question comes from an individual currently on remand for drug and firearms offences and had previously been dismissed by the Attorney General due to insufficient evidence.
Framing this as an attempt to escape accountability is either a fundamental misunderstanding or a deliberate distortion.
Jurisdiction Must Be Determined Before Procedure
Takiyuddin has suggested that the Prime Minister should simply file a strike-out application under Order 18 of the Rules of Court. This argument misses the mark.
A strike-out application assumes that the court already has jurisdiction. The constitutional reference challenges that assumption. It raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and whether such litigation is permissible under Articles 39, 40, 43, and the Basic Structure Doctrine. The concern is whether allowing such suits could undermine executive function and the constitutional role of the Prime Minister.
This is a constitutional issue, not a procedural one. Only the Federal Court has the authority to decide it.
The Attorney General’s Role Is to Uphold the Constitution, Not Play Politics
Takiyuddin now calls for the Attorney General to act as guardian of the Constitution. That is already happening. The Attorney General’s duty is not to intervene in politically sensitive lawsuits to benefit one side. It is to defend the Constitution, including by supporting the use of Article 128(2) where appropriate.
It is deeply ironic that those who have previously undermined the judiciary now claim to defend it when politically convenient. The rule of law must be consistent. It cannot be invoked selectively.
The Real Danger Is Judicial Weaponisation
What sets a dangerous precedent is not the reference to the Federal Court. The true threat lies in allowing politically discredited individuals to initiate civil suits against sitting Prime Ministers, long after the events in question, with full media attention, despite prior investigations being closed. This tactic risks turning the courts into battlegrounds for political sabotage.
Such actions do not promote accountability. They erode public trust in the legal system and disrupt the functioning of government.
This Is About Institutional Protection, Not Personal Privilege
This reference is not about protecting Anwar Ibrahim as an individual. It is about protecting the constitutional role of the Prime Minister from being undermined by litigation that may not meet the standards required under constitutional law.
If the Federal Court finds that the suit can proceed, then it will. That is how the legal system works.
To claim that seeking a constitutional ruling from the highest court is an attack on the rule of law is not only wrong, it is irresponsible. It demeans the legal process and undermines the credibility of Parliament itself.
Farouq is a litigation lawyer and regular contributor at Dekapital. He writes about law, power and truth, with a sharp and fearless voice that bows to no one.