Immunity split: Why Anwar faces trial while Trump is shielded
The United States is classified as 'free' and Malaysia as 'partly free' in Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2024 report. However, US President Donald Trump enjoys more unbridled power than Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Mr Anwar's plea for immunity while in office has been rejected by the Malaysian High Court. He is accused of sexual assault by his former research assistant Muhammed Yusoff Rawther in 2018, four years before he became prime minister. Trial is due to start on June 16.
The High Court dismissed Mr Anwar's application to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court.
High Court Judge Roz Mawar Rozain said the federal constitution does not provide immunity for prime ministers.
She also ordered Mr Anwar to pay RM20,000 in costs to Mr Yusoff.
Mr Anwar's lawyer, Alan Wong, said they would appeal the court's decision.
Mr Anwar wanted the Federal Court to determine whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would impair his ability to effectively discharge his executive duties, according to Wong.
Mr Anwar said in a statement: 'This matter has never been about seeking personal immunity or escaping legal scrutiny. It concerns the integrity of our constitutional system and the need to ensure that high public office is protected from litigation that may be strategically timed, politically motivated, or institutionally disruptive.' See also Americans brace for Covid 'surge upon a surge' Malaysian High Court vs US Supreme Court
The Malaysian High Court's ruling on the prime minister contrasts with the US Supreme Court's stance on the president.
The US Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump significant immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. In the landmark 2024 decision Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a president is entitled to absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional duties and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. However, there is no immunity for unofficial or personal conduct.
This ruling carried weight in legal proceedings against Mr Trump, particularly those related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. While some charges have been affected by this decision, others, such as his conviction in New York for falsifying business records related to hush money payments, have been upheld. The court determined that these actions were personal and not protected by presidential immunity. Prosecuted leaders
While former leaders being prosecuted is relatively common in democracies, it is rare for a sitting leader to face criminal prosecution or conviction while still in office.
Former heads of state or government charged with crimes include: Former French presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy. Both were convicted of corruption after leaving office.
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. He was convicted of corruption after leaving office.
Former South Korean presidents Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, have been convicted and imprisoned after their term.
Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak is currently serving a prison sentence for corruption. Another Malaysian premier, Muhyiddin Yassin, was charged with abuse of power and money laundering after leaving office.
Former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was convicted of fraud after her term, though she continued to serve as Vice President while appealing.
Sitting leaders being prosecuted are rare but not unheard of.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption charges.
Former Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz was criminally investigated on corruption charges while in office. He resigned and was later convicted of perjury.
Mr Anwar, 77, has faced legal battles and jail sentences in the past for what he calls politically motivated cases.
His former aide, Yusoff, 31, currently detained by the police, is on trial for alleged drug trafficking . He claims he was framed by those in power.
His lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, welcomed the High Court ruling. He said it shows there is equality for everyone.
Mr Anwar's plea for immunity was opposed by the civil society group, Lawyers for Liberty.
'This is not a concept that exists in any democratic country; it is a blatant violation of the rule of law and a flagrant feature of authoritarianism,' said Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek, reported Bloomberg. See also Trump urged to embrace free trade amid rising tensions Awkward complications
Prosecuting leaders in office, however, can create awkward problems and may undermine their ability to carry out their duties. That is why there have been cases when ministers and officials have been suspended or asked to take leave while under investigation.
Singapore's former transport minister S. Iswaran was instructed by the then prime minister Lee Hsien Loong to take a long leave of absence while being investigated for accepting valuable items from billionaire Ong Beng Seng. He was sentenced to 12 months' jail in October 2024, but after four months in prison, he was put on home detention for the rest of his term.
Also noteworthy was the 'hush money' case against Mr Trump. He was convicted by a New York jury of falsifying business records after his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 just before the 2016 election. However, the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, let hin off with an unconditional discharge on January 10. Ten days later, on January 20, Mr Trump was sworn in as president.
Featured photo from Facebook (for illustration purposes only)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
35 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Latvian president believes NATO will overcome obstacles, meet 5% goal
RIGA - Latvia's president expressed confidence NATO would agree to a new higher defence spending target demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump, despite Spanish objections, saying the alliance had little choice given the growing threat from Russia. Spain on Thursday asked to opt out of the plan to increase members' defence spending to 5% of their gross domestic product, as requested by Trump, a move which could derail next week's NATO summit at the Hague. Any agreement to raise defence spending needs unanimous approval by the 32 member states. Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics told Reuters on Friday he understood why countries further from Russia might have difficulties convincing their voters to spend more on defence. But he said the need was pressing. 'I do hope there is the understanding in Madrid that this is a critical time for the Alliance, both when it comes to (increasing) its defence capabilities, but also to the Trans-Atlantic relationship,' he said in an interview in Riga. 'I think that they don't have much of a choice,' he added. At an estimated 1.28% of GDP, Spain had the lowest proportion of expenditure on defence in the alliance last year, according to NATO estimates. Latvia and fellow Baltic states Lithuania and Estonia are urgently ramping up their militaries, fearing that their neighbour and former overlord Russia could push on from its 2022 invasion of Ukraine to take more territory. They spent more than 3% of GDP on defence this year, and have committed to top 5% for the next few years. "We are saying that we need to spend as soon as possible now in order to avoid a worst-case scenario, spending much more later," Rinkevics said. "While Russia is stuck in Ukraine, that possibility of a direct military attack is not very high," he said. "But it may change very, very quickly ... if a development in Ukraine leads Russian leadership to believe that NATO is weak, that Ukraine is defeated, that NATO is divided". REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
40 minutes ago
- CNA
Oil prices slip as US sanctions ease fears of escalation in Iran
HOUSTON :Oil prices slipped on Friday as the U.S. imposed new Iran-related sanctions marking a diplomatic approach that fed hopes of a negotiated agreement, a day after President Donald Trump said he might take two weeks to decide U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Brent crude futures were down $2.27, or 2.9 per cent, to $76.58 a barrel by 11:48 a.m. EDT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude for July - which did not settle on Thursday as it was a U.S. holiday and expires on Friday - was down 21 cents or 0.3 per cent at $74.93. The more liquid August contract was down around 0.1 per cent, or 5 cents, to $73.45. Brent was on track to rise 3.2 per cent on the week, while front-month U.S. crude futures were set to increase by 2.7 per cent. President Donald Trump's administration has issued fresh Iran-related sanctions, including on two entities based in Hong Kong, and counter-terrorism-related sanctions, according to a notice posted to the U.S. Treasury Department website. The sanctions target at least 20 entities, five individuals and three vessels, according to Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control. "Those sanctions are cutting both ways, they may be part of a broader negotiation approach towards Iran. The fact they are undertaking this is a signal they are trying to resolve this outside of conflict," said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital in New York. Prices jumped almost 3 per cent on Thursday after Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran, while Iran - OPEC's third-largest producer - fired missiles and drones at Israel. Neither side showed any sign of backing down in the week-old war. Brent prices retreated after the White House said President Donald Trump would decide whether the United States would get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict in the next two weeks. 'Although a major escalation is yet to occur, risks to supply from the region remain high, still hinging upon the potential for U.S. involvement,' said Russell Shor, senior market analyst at Meanwhile, Israel seeks genuine efforts on Iran's nuclear capabilities from Friday's meeting between European and Iranian ministers, not just another round of talks, Israel's UN ambassador said. "However, while Israel and Iran carry on pounding away at each other, there can always be an unintended action that escalates the conflict and touches upon oil infrastructure," PVM analyst John Evans said. Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for Middle East oil exports. However, oil exports so far have not been disrupted and there is no shortage of supply, said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS. "The direction of oil prices from here will depend on whether there are supply disruptions." An escalation of the conflict in such a way that Israel attacks export infrastructure or Iran disrupts shipping through the strait could lead to $100 per barrel of oil being a reality, said Panmure Liberum analyst Ashley Kelty.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Can Nato keep Trump on-message about Russia threat?
Since coming back into office on Jan 20, US President Donald Trump has upended the West's approach towards Russia's war on Ukraine by opening the door to closer ties with Moscow. PHOTO: EPA-EFE BRUSSELS - When leaders from Nato's 32 countries gather for a summit in The Hague next week, most want to send a clear message: Russia is the main threat to their alliance. But the loudest voice in the room likely won't be on the same page. Since coming back to office, US President Donald Trump has upended the West's approach towards Russia's war on Ukraine by undercutting Kyiv and opening the door to closer ties with Moscow. While the volatile leader has expressed some frustration with Russia's Vladimir Putin for refusing a ceasefire, he has steered clear of punishing the Kremlin. At a Group of 7 summit this week, Mr Trump made waves by saying the group of industrialised countries should never have expelled Russia. Ahead of the Hague gathering, diplomats at Nato have been wrangling over a five-paragraph summit statement, with many countries pressing for a full-throated assertion of the menace from Moscow. That, they say, will help explain the main thrust of the meeting: an agreement for countries to ramp up defence spending to satisfy Mr Trump's demand for it to reach 5 per cent of GDP. Statement on Russia 'threat' Since the Kremlin launched its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the alliance has called Russia 'the most significant and direct threat to allies' security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area'. But this time around the United States – backed up by Moscow-friendly Hungary and Slovakia – has been intent on watering that down. Diplomats have been juggling with variants such as referring to 'threats, including Russia' or mentioning 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'. The verbal nuances may seem slight, but they mean a lot to those countries being asked to massively ramp up spending and those on Nato's eastern flank most threatened by the Kremlin. Nato has warned that Russia could be ready to attack an alliance country within five years. 'If we can get Trump to sign off on calling Russia a long-term threat then that would be a good result,' a senior European diplomat told AFP. 'Near threat' As US peace efforts between Russia and Ukraine have stalled, the diplomat said that Washington appeared to have 'moved a centimetre in our direction' on taking a stronger stance on Russia. 'Of course more hawkish countries want to go further – but just getting Trump to agree that would still be fine,' the diplomat said. Part of the US reasoning is that Washington is more worried about the threat China poses worldwide – and that Russia is more a problem just in Europe. 'Russia is the near threat,' said US ambassador to Nato Matthew Whitaker. 'But China is obviously a big challenge for all of us, and we need to be allied and address those threats as well.' Mr Camille Grand of the European Council on Foreign Relations said that beneath the diplomatic fine-tuning, Nato was being confronted by a 'fundamental question'. 'How does the United States view Russia?' he said. 'So far, we haven't really got an answer.' Even if Nato does opt for stronger wording on Moscow, there is always the possibility that Mr Trump could show up in The Hague and directly contradict it. But the debate could come into sharper focus in the months after the summit when the United States could announce a pull-back of forces in Europe as part of a review of its global deployments. Division on Ukraine One area where Washington appears clearly not on board with most other allies is on backing Ukraine. Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky is set to attend on the sidelines of the summit but his involvement is being kept to a minimum to avoid a bust-up with Mr Trump. Diplomats said there should be a reference in the summit statement linking new defence spending to helping Ukraine – but there will be no talk of Kyiv's long-term push to join Nato. 'The US does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security,' said Mr Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato. 'Our European allies do, so they feel that if Putin is allowed to prevail in Ukraine, or if Ukraine does not survive as a sovereign, independent state, they are at risk.' AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
