Sexual Abuse Case - Anwar should NOT delay the FAIR TRIAL in Open Court? Too many JUDGE changes, lawyer changes, applications???

When a sitting Prime Minister is alleged to have committed sexual abuse, it is a matter of PUBLIC Interest, and best that the TRIAL be speedily commenced and resolved, and it must be by OPEN TRIAL.

Note that this civil suit was filed by Yusoff Rawther on 2021, after nothing came out of a police report that he earlier filed in 2019. WHY has the TRIAL not started yet - it should have started and been over at most within 3 years of filing?

Yusoff's civil suit comes after he made a statutory declaration and a police report over the incident in 2019. In January 2020, the Attorney General’s Chambers said it would not pursue the matter. ....Yusoff, now 32, filed the civil suit against Anwar in July 2021, alleging that he had been sexually assaulted at Anwar’s Segambut home on Oct 2, 2018.... - Edge, 9/9/2025

'Citing prolonged delays on behalf of his client, Rafique said that the original High Court action was filed in July 2021, and trial was set for June 16, 2025' - well this DELAY maybe caused by the fact that there is not enough Judges and Courts in Malaysia to be able to speedily dispose cases. 

Malaysia does not have enough judges to deal with the growing workload, as the number of court cases had surged in the past few years by up to 50 and 60 per cent, Chief Justice of Malaysia Datuk Seri Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said today. -Malay Mail, 12/1/2026

Across different legal systems, the number of judges per million people varies widely:

Country / Region	Judges per Million People	Status / Year
Europe (Average)	~220	2022 Average
USA	~150	2024 Estimate
Canada	~21	2026 Ratio (Approx. 1 per 47,000)
Australia	~8	2026 Ratio (Approx. 1 per 124,000)
India	15 – 22	2025/2026 Report
Malaysia	~4	2026 Ratio (Approx. 1 per 239,852)

The MADANI government has failed to address this fundamental issue of increasing High Court/Court of Appeal/Federal Court JUDGES - just about 4 judges for every 1 million people is SHOCKING and it will significantly affect the administration of JUSTICE in Malaysia. APPOINT MORE JUDGES now...

Back to Yusoff Rawther's case and its DELAYS 

Anwar CHANGING of Lawyers - a right yes, but is it also a 'strategy' to delay the commencement of TRIAL?

On May 23 last year, Anwar’s team had applied to change lawyers from Jeffrey Lee to Zaid Megat Murad.

Several months later in September, after the Court of Appeal had fixed dates throughout February to file and hear the appeal, Anwar filed a notice to change lawyers to the firm of William Leong & Co.

A month after this, Anwar filed another application to change his law firm from William Leong & Co to Christopher & Lee Ong.

“From the above chronology, it is clear that the appellant has repeatedly changed lawyers at different junctures of the proceedings, and at the last minute, while the court has already fixed dates,” Rafique wrote.

He argued that the rationale that these lawyers were “newly appointed” and needed more time to adapt to the case should not be accepted as “good cause”. - Malaysiakini, 21/1/2026

Then, Anwar asked for adjournment because he was the Prime Minister and that no civil suits should proceed against him so long as he is a sitting PM. The High Court judge rejected Anwar's application, and then he appealed to the Court of Appeal - and later withdrew that appeal. Remember, that the Court had earlier fixed for the TRIAL to begin on June 16, 2025.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers have written to the Court of Appeal to inform the court that Anwar is withdrawing his appeal over the High Court’s decision to dismiss his attempt to refer eight questions of law to the Federal Court with regards to his former aide Muhammad Yusoff Rawther’s lawsuit against him....  On June 4, then-presiding High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain had dismissed Anwar’s application to refer questions of law with regards to the position of a sitting prime minister being sued, as it did not meet the threshold for the questions to be referred to the Federal Court. - Edge, 13/2/2026

QUESTION must be asked is WHY is Anwar delaying the commencement of the TRIAL - and Anwar's delays just makes the public belief that it may be TRUE that Anwar sexually abused Yusoff - BUT, Please let us wait for the TRIAL - hoping that the Judge be INDEPENDENT and justice be done...noting there was a 'questionable' change of judge hearing the case before...

Justice Johan Lee would be transferred to the High Court in Alor Setar effective next month.High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain was the NEW Judge 

Change of Judge in Sexual Assault suit filed by Yusoff Rawther against PM Anwar Ibrahim may raise questions? Can't the same Judge still hear the case?

Roz Mawar Rozain must recuse herself from Yusoff Rawther - Anwar Ibrahim case for justice to be seen to be done. Will judges 'picked' by Anwar be INDEPENDENT in cases involving Anwar, family/friends or even his government?

Then Roz Mawar Rozain was transferred, and another NEW Judge - Justice Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan 

Justice Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan will hear former research assistant Yusoff Rawther’s civil lawsuit against Anwar Ibrahim, lawyer Nur Mustanir Nor said today.The lawyer, a member of Yusoff’s legal team, said the case was assigned to Raja Ahmad after Justice Roz Mawar Rozain was transferred to Seremban last month.“Case management will be held before the new judge on April 8 to fix trial dates,”

Some may wonder whether Judge Roz Mawar was 'removed' because she dismissed Anwar's application that the civil suit ought not commence/continue against a sitting Prime Minister???

It is BEST NEVER to Change Judges after the said Judge has already conducted case management and fixed TRIAL DATES - because whenever a NEW Judge is appointed - again, there will be CASE MANAGEMENT and NEW Trial Dates fixed  - It may be another 'DELAY TACTIC'. After all, the same JUDGE, even if transferred, can always return to hear the TRIAL -- that is BEST. Every time JUDGE changes - there may be NEW CASE MANAGEMENTS - and NEW TRIAL DATES will be fixed.  

Anwar Ibrahim has again applied for a postponement of the sexual assault suit by Yusoff Rawther, just a month after the Court of Appeal ordered the prime minister to pay RM50,000 in costs to his former aide over multiple delays of the trial, which was supposed to have started in July last year.

In court filings seen by MalaysiaNow, Anwar is seeking the Kuala Lumpur High Court to rule on three questions concerning claims Yusoff made in his suit against the PKR leader.

But Anwar requested that deliberations on these questions should not be conducted in a physical court, as any appearance by him as the sitting prime minister "will inevitably attract intense public and media attention".

"The preliminary issues and/or questions raised should be heard and disposed of by way of affidavits or in the alternative, in camera and/or by remote communication, to the exclusion of members of the media, members of the public, journalists and/or any persons not directly involved in the proceedings," said a notice...Malaysia Now, 3/4/2026

In media reports today, this is what Anwar Ibrahim is alleging 

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim claimed he could not have sexually assaulted Yusoff Rawther because he was with his daughter Nurul Nuha at the time and date of the alleged incident.

This is according to a supporting affidavit that Anwar filed to the Kuala Lumpur High Court denying that his former aide was present at his residence in Segambut on Oct 2, 2018.

"... My second daughter, Nurul Nuha, was at my residence between 2pm and 6pm.

"She confirmed that she and her children were in my company until the arrival of my guests from Indonesia, namely Romo Nitiyudo and Nella Sandra, and that at no time between 2pm and 4pm did I meet anyone other than her and my grandchildren," he said in the court document filed on March 31.

The Tambun MP also refuted claims that his then private secretary Shukri Saad had asked Yusoff to deliver a speech text to the residence.

According to Anwar, who was an opposition leader then, his security personnel, Norafree Ahmad, also denied that he accompanied Yusoff to Anwar's residence, as alleged in the former aide's civil suit.

The premier claimed that during the day of the alleged incident, he was in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, in the morning and only arrived at the house in Segambut between 1pm and 2pm, before leaving for an event in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, between 5pm and 6pm.

"I state that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was present at the Segambut residence on Oct 2, 2018.

"I further state that the plaintiff did not hand over the speech that I delivered on Oct 2, 2018, at the Mahatma Gandhi Event directly to me. It was handed over to my security personnel," he said.

Anwar's affidavit was filed in support of his application seeking the court to postpone Yusoff's civil suit against him until it determines three issues he raised regarding Yusoff's allegations.

The prime minister is also seeking the court to bar the media from covering the preliminary issues and limit hearings only to persons directly involved in the case.

Another 'DELAY TACTIC'? All this defence must be done in a FAIR TRIAL in an open court - not through Affidavits by the Defendant. 

WHY? When the witness takes the stand and testifies - the Judge will be observing the witness to see if he/she is believable, or is an unreliable witness that is hard to believe. Second, there will be CROSS EXAMINATION of the witness that will challenge the TRUTH of the witness testimony - and then RE-Examination of the witness.

NOW HEARSAY evidence is generally INADMISSIBLE - so what Anwar says about what his daughter, his then private secretary Shukri Saad, and HIS Security Personnel say are all HEARSAY evidence. Will they in Court on the witness stand say the same thing - will their evidence survive cross-examination by Yusoff's lawyers? Will the JUDGE believe the said witnesses are telling the TRUTH?

SUBJUDICE? - the Trial is yet to start, so why is ANWAR trying to do now > is he trying to influence the court and the public?

In a Civil Trial, it is the Plaintiff(Yusoff) that starts - he will call witnesses to prove his allegations FIRST - then only will the Defence present his/her case.

Since there was a police report made about this case in 2019 - a police investigation would have commenced, and NORMALLY the alleged perpetrator would be called and his statement taken - Wonder what Anwar is saying NOW tallies with the statement he gave the police then in 2019? I am CURIOUS... Did Anwar's daughter Nurul Nuha, that security personell Norafree Ahmad, his former private secretary Shukri Saad  make a statement to the police during the police investigations? Did they say what Anwar claims they said? Surely, they were material witness that the police should have questioned and taken statements then? [Remember, for a criminal charge, the prosecutor must determine that they have sufficient evidence to proof at the very least a prima facie case - if not they will not proceed to charge any suspect. Thus, the fact that the police/prosecution did not charge Anwar is NO proof of innocence...}Will those statements to the police be adduced as evidence during the TRIAL? 

Will this application, the contents of the affidavit NOW affect the INDEPENDENCE of the TRIAL JUDGE? Would this lead to an application to RECUSE the Judge and more delays ... ? Well, a Judge is HUMAN but he must be PROFESSIONAL and ought not be affected by the position/status of the parties - or all information/discussion floating around. SUBJUDICE was relevant when we had JURY TRIALS - but no more when it is professional Judges hearing cases.

What about the JUDGE  

On 30/9/2022 appointed as a Judicial Commissioner - and he was appointed Judge during the Premiership of Anwar Ibrahim. Did a Google Search - and some media reports which mention the Judge who will now hear this case...

Kindergarten teacher M Indira Gandhi has failed in her nonfeasance lawsuit against the police over their failure to locate her ex-husband, K Pathmanathan @ Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah, who took their youngest child away. In delivering his decision on Friday, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan said that Indira's claim of nonfeasance — the failure to perform an act required by law — was a nonstarter. - Edge, 28/6/2024

Tengku Maimun cited the Indira Gandhi case as one she still reflects on, asserting that authorities allegedly failed to enforce court rulings in Indira’s favour due to the mistaken belief that Islam requires special protection....In June last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Indira’s civil suit against the police, with judicial commissioner Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan stating that the IGP’s efforts did not indicate any neglect of duty. The Federal Court has since declared the unilateral conversion of Indira’s children null and void. - Scoop, 20/1/2025

No JUDGMENT on the JUDGE - just hope that he will be INDEPENDENT and ensure that Yusoff Rawther and Anwar Ibrahim get a FAIR Trial. 

The PUBLIC is getting impatient - they want to know the TRUTH - they want the trial started, and that the MEDIA provides good coverage of the case. At the end of the day, we will know whether our current PM sexually abused someone - OR it was all LIES.

One thing about Yusoff Rawther is his 'bravery' and commitment to continue his quest for justice against this ALL POWERFUL Prime Minister - He has stayed the course, besides having to stay in detention(prison) when he charged for drug trafficking - whereby he was acquitted.

AS THE TRIAL DELAYS, IT REALLY IS NOT GOOD FOR PM ANWAR... 

We must have speedy trials - as time will affect WITNESSES (memory - how will one remember accurately something that happens on a particular day at this particular time??), and evidence that may be needed may disappear (like CCTV records - that may be erased after some time). Will Anwar now be able to prove that Yusoff was never there by using some CCTV footage?) Thus, Court Cases need to be EXPEDITED - start and end fast, especially for criminal trials.

APPOINT more JUDGES and build more COURT ROOMS - let us at least increase the Judge-Population Ratio to at least 25 Judges per 1 million persons (now it is just slightly above 4 Judges per million)  

And, once a Judge is assigned to a case and have done CASE MANAGEMENT, the Judge should not be changed until TRIAL is over ..

 

PM changes lawyers again for Yusoff Rawther’s suit; judge transferred

By Hafiz Yatim / theedgemalaysia.com

04 Feb 2026, 02:21 pmUpdated - 03:56 pm

Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, a former aide to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. (Photo by Low Yen Yeing/The Edge)

KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 4): Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has changed his lawyers to represent him in the civil suit filed against him by former aide Muhammed Yusoff Rawther over purported sexual assault.

This is the fourth time that Anwar has changed his lawyers or solicitors for this civil matter.

Separately, presiding High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain has been transferred to the Seremban High Court five days from now (Feb 9) following a transfer issued by Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Hashim Hamzah.

Hashim issued the transfer last Friday (Jan 30).

It remains to be seen who will now preside over the case although there is speculation that Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan, who is also in the Kuala Lumpur High Court civil division, could take over.

Yusoff’s counsel Rafique Rashid Ali confirmed the change of Anwar's legal team when approached by reporters on Wednesday.

The prime minister had changed his previous law firm from Messrs William Leong, led by the Selayang member of Parliament, to Messrs Christopher & Lee Ong.

Rafique said his firm received a letter from the new lawyers stating this, as well as a separate notice on Roz Mawar's transfer. The new solicitors also wrote in to seek an adjournment to the case for the hearing of its appeal at the Court of Appeal next month, he said.

“This is the fourth time that Anwar has changed his lawyers in the civil suit. I do not have a problem if Anwar wants to change lawyers frequently but this should not be at the expense of delaying the trial,” he said.

"My firm has written to the Court of Appeal on Jan 30, upon being informed of the change of solicitors, to object to the adjournment of next month's hearing date scheduled for March 4," he added.

Before William Leong, Anwar had engaged Messrs Zain, Megat & Murad, and prior to that he was represented by Messrs Jeffrey Lee.

In earlier hearings, Roz Mawar had dismissed Anwar’s application to refer several questions of law with regard to the position of a sitting prime minister to be sued as it did not meet the threshold for the referral to be referred to the Federal Court.

The matter is pending appeal, and a hearing date is scheduled at the Court of Appeal next month.

Roz Mawar had also said that the application had failed to meet the threshold needed to refer the questions to the country's top court.

Yusoff, who is turning 33 this year, filed the civil suit against Anwar in July 2021, alleging that he had been sexually assaulted at Anwar’s Segambut home on Oct 2, 2018.

He claimed that after filing a police report, he was accused of trying to ruin Anwar’s political career, and this accusation had affected his mental health.

Yusoff is seeking various damages and other relief. Anwar, 77, has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit. - Edge, 4/2/2025

Sexual assault: Anwar denies meeting Yusoff, says daughter can vouch for him

Published:  Apr 8, 2026 2:59 PM

⋅

Updated: 2:20 P

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim claimed he could not have sexually assaulted Yusoff Rawther because he was with his daughter Nurul Nuha at the time and date of the alleged incident.

This is according to a supporting affidavit that Anwar filed to the Kuala Lumpur High Court denying that his former aide was present at his residence in Segambut on Oct 2, 2018.

"... My second daughter, Nurul Nuha, was at my residence between 2pm and 6pm.

"She confirmed that she and her children were in my company until the arrival of my guests from Indonesia, namely Romo Nitiyudo and Nella Sandra, and that at no time between 2pm and 4pm did I meet anyone other than her and my grandchildren," he said in the court document filed on March 31.

The Tambun MP also refuted claims that his then private secretary Shukri Saad had asked Yusoff to deliver a speech text to the residence.

According to Anwar, who was an opposition leader then, his security personnel, Norafree Ahmad, also denied that he accompanied Yusoff to Anwar's residence, as alleged in the former aide's civil suit.

The premier claimed that during the day of the alleged incident, he was in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, in the morning and only arrived at the house in Segambut between 1pm and 2pm, before leaving for an event in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, between 5pm and 6pm.

"I state that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was present at the Segambut residence on Oct 2, 2018.

"I further state that the plaintiff did not hand over the speech that I delivered on Oct 2, 2018, at the Mahatma Gandhi Event directly to me. It was handed over to my security personnel," he said.

Anwar's affidavit was filed in support of his application seeking the court to postpone Yusoff's civil suit against him until it determines three issues he raised regarding Yusoff's allegations.

The prime minister is also seeking the court to bar the media from covering the preliminary issues and limit hearings only to persons directly involved in the case.

‘Just another delay tactic’

Yusoff's counsel, Rafique Rashid Ali, told reporters this morning that they will file an objection against Anwar's application.

He claimed this was just another tactic by the prime minister to further delay the main trial in Yusoff's civil suit, which was initially scheduled to begin in June last year.

Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali

"The court has set (the trial to begin) in June 2025, but until today, it has been about nine or 10 months, and the trial has yet to start.

"We will also object (against the application to bar media coverage). I stated our objection earlier today in an affidavit that it is very unfair to do this because the court has to be open to all.

"This is not a sexual assault case that involves a child or an underage kid, but this involves individuals who are Malaysians, including a person who holds the highest public office in the country.

"The rakyat must know what happened. So, we will object to the application," he said.

During the press conference at the Kuala Lumpur Courts Complex, Rafique also urged the inspector-general of police to provide an update on the police investigation into Yusoff's report in 2024, claiming that he was framed by two individuals.

This was regarding the man's arrest by police for allegedly trafficking drugs and possessing two imitation firearms. - Malaysiakini, 8/4/2026

---

 

Now, Anwar wants public, media barred from court as he seeks rulings on ex-aide's sexual assault suit

The prime minister has submitted several questions to the court while requesting them to be deliberated remotely in order to avoid 'media attention'.

MalaysiaNow

April 3, 2026 9:06 PM

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has requested that his latest application regarding claims by Yusoff Rawther be heard remotely, without the presence of the media or the public.

Anwar Ibrahim has again applied for a postponement of the sexual assault suit by Yusoff Rawther, just a month after the Court of Appeal ordered the prime minister to pay RM50,000 in costs to his former aide over multiple delays of the trial, which was supposed to have started in July last year.

In court filings seen by MalaysiaNow, Anwar is seeking the Kuala Lumpur High Court to rule on three questions concerning claims Yusoff made in his suit against the PKR leader.

But Anwar requested that deliberations on these questions should not be conducted in a physical court, as any appearance by him as the sitting prime minister "will inevitably attract intense public and media attention".

"The preliminary issues and/or questions raised should be heard and disposed of by way of affidavits or in the alternative, in camera and/or by remote communication, to the exclusion of members of the media, members of the public, journalists and/or any persons not directly involved in the proceedings," said a notice filed by law firm Christopher & Lee Ong.

It added that the application should be heard through "remote communication technology", citing Section 15A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Questions on visit to Bukit Segambut home

The questions raised include a claim by Yusoff that Anwar's private secretary, Shukri Saad, had instructed Yusoff to personally deliver the text of a speech to the PKR president at his residence in Bukit Segambut Dalam on Oct 2, 2018, when the sexual assault allegedly took place.

Anwar also disputed the claim that his bodyguard, Norafee Ahmad @ Dekdi, had accompanied Yusoff to the house, as well as whether a meeting between Yusoff and Anwar actually took place.

Anwar said Shukri did not instruct Yusoff to deliver the speech to him, and that Norafee also did not accompany him.

He stated that one of his bodyguards, Saiful Anwar Rusli, could corroborate his claim that Yusoff did not come to his house, adding that his daughter, Nurul Nuha Anwar, was with him "at all material times from 2pm to 4pm when the alleged assault purportedly took place".

Stating that the questions he has raised "are not complex" and require "straightforward and simple confirmation of facts", Anwar said a ruling that Yusoff's claims were false would save substantial "time and expenditure" as a trial would not be needed.

He said this was because the alleged assault "did not and/or could not have taken place because the plaintiff did not even meet the defendant at all on Oct 2, 2018."

The latest application by Anwar comes ahead of a 30-day deadline given to him by the appeals court last month to pay RM50,000 in costs to Yusoff, after the prime minister abruptly withdrew an application for immunity from the sexual assault suit.

Yusoff's lawyer, Rafique Rashid, had told the court that frequent changes of lawyers by Anwar – four times since the suit was filed in 2021—as well as the immunity bid, had burdened the defence with documents and written submissions, resulting in the long delay of the trial. It is understood that Anwar has settled the payment.

A case management to fix a new date for the suit's hearing was scheduled for April 8 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The suit filed by Yusoff, who was a research assistant at Anwar's bungalow office in Petaling Jaya, alleges that the PKR leader sexually assaulted him on Oct 2 2018, just days before he won the Port Dickson by-election.

He is seeking a court declaration that Anwar committed the sexual assault, as well as general, exemplary and aggravated damages for suffering trauma and physical, psychological and sociological disturbances as a result of the alleged incident.

Anwar has denied the allegations.

Just three weeks before the trial was scheduled to begin on June 16 last year, Anwar made an unprecedented move to seek immunity as well as a postponement of the case.

That controversial application was filed while Yusoff was still remanded at Sungai Buloh Prison pending the outcome of his trial on charges of drug trafficking and firearms.

On June 12, Yusoff was acquitted of the charges, following a trial that saw prosecution witnesses bumbling during cross-examination, lending credence to widespread speculation that he was a victim of a conspiracy by politically connected individuals.

Three days earlier, Anwar managed to obtain a temporary stay of the sexual assault suit trial.

Yusoff, who is the grandson of the late Penang consumer advocate SM Mohamed Idris, has said that the drugs and firearms charges were the work of people in power who framed him due to his ongoing civil suit for sexual assault against Anwar.

In a police report, Yusoff also named Anwar's former political secretary turned millionaire businessman, Farhash Wafa Salvador, as among those who harboured a grudge against him.

Yusoff first made the allegation against Anwar in a statutory declaration in November 2019, followed by a police report.

A subsequent police investigation saw Yusoff agreeing to take a lie detector test, while Anwar opted to refuse the test, citing the allegations against him as baseless. - Malaysia Now, 3/4/2026

 

 

 

Hamzah/Rafizi/Khairy - Freedom of Association - the rights of members? Political party 'above the law' - court cannot review party decision? Abolish 18C - Clear POLICY stance for political party?

Hamzah Zainudin/Rafizi and the issue of Freedom of Association > evaluating how democratic Malaysian political parties are, and whether it does  or does not respect the right of Freedom of Association, which includes the RIGHT OF MEMBERS in an Association? 

Our Federal Constitution only talks about the right  (c) all citizens have the right to form associations, but does not clearly talk about the right of Freedom of Association.

Freedom of Association rights have 2 aspects - the rights of the Association, and the rights of members of an association.

The bosses, or the highest decision making body of any association is the MEMBERS - and practically, this power is exercised by members at a General Meeting. If the INCUMBENT leadership decides to expel, suspend, or impose any punitive action on a member, that member has the right to ask the General Membership at a General Meetings to review that decision. Practically, it is difficult, because member General Meetings occur usually once a year, and sometimes even after a longer period. 

Then, the only manner, in which to raise the issue is by submitting a MOTION for the consideration of the General Meeting - but then, sometimes the incumbent leadership can 'block' such motions...

ALL in all, it is VERY DIFFICULT especially for an already expelled or suspended member to ask the bosses, members at a General Meeting - to RESCIND the party's or association decision of wrongful expulsion of members > thus, the ONLY available avenue is the INDEPENDENT COURT by way of a Judicial Review application...

In Malaysia, that access to Court for MEMBERS have been unreasonably shut since ___, when after the Courts declared UMNO illegal, the then BN government wanted to shut the door to member's access to COURT - to challenge wrongful termination/suspension or any other decisions of the Party(really meaning decisions of the incumbent leadership) even if it may be against the Party's own Constitution, or against the law..that was a NEW part 1A PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO POLITICAL PARTIES ONLY - And, under that part was section 18C

Section 18C Societies Act 1966 Decision of political party to be final and conclusive 

The decision of a political party or any person authorized by it or by its constitution or rules or regulations made under the constitution on the interpretation of its constitution, rules or regulations or on any matter relating to the affairs of the party shall be final and conclusive and such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit, application, question or proceedings on any ground regarding the validity of such decision.

The amendment was WRONG and discriminatory - ONLY for Political Parties.  Not only can no member challenge a party decision in court  - BUT No court can also entertain or consider such application.

EFFECT -  Political parties became DICTATORIAL - the incumbent leadership decides, and that is it.

So, now political party incumbents have the power to even EXPEL or suspend members - who may challenge for leadership at upcoming party internal elections... Could we say that may be what happened in UMNO when 

On January 27, 2023, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) sacked former health minister

Khairy Jamaluddin and suspended former defence minister Hishammuddin Hussein for six years due to disciplinary breaches..

Now because of 18C - Khairy and Hishamuddin could not go to court...was it because of real 'misconduct'.. or was it really to prevent them for challenging for top leadership position at the next party elections?

Similarly, PKR also 'PKR deputy president Mohamed Azmin Ali and vice-president Zuraida Kamaruddin have been sacked from their party, its national leadership committee decided today.... PKR sacked some 11,000 members aligned to its former deputy president Azmin Ali following the Sheraton Move which saw the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government two years ago...PKR has expelled 28 members, including elected leaders, for holding membership in other political parties,

Parti Pribumi Bersatu deputy president Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin has been expelled from the party, effective immediately, following a decision by the party’s disciplinary board.

Amanah has sacked 58 party members this year for taking part in the internal elections of other political parties, says secretary-general Faiz Fadzil.

The membership of three PAS State Assemblymen (Adun) in Perlis has been terminated with immediate effect based on Clause 76 and Clause 15A(1)(b) of the PAS Constitution (2025 Amendment).

DAP's disciplinary board today has decided to uphold its decision to sack 38 of its members.Out of the 38, 12 of them were sacked for standing as independent candidates.  The remaining 26 members were dismissed for breaching party discipline.

The issue is NOT whether the political party was RIGHT in taking such actions - The issue is that ALL these political party members HAVE no right to challenge their 'wrongful dismissal' - was it really a serious misconduct or a breach of party Constitution? Did it warrant a DISMISSAL? What party leaderships says may be 'LIES' and the real reasons are some other > that is why Section 18C must be repealed - so party members have the access to COURT to determine whether party actions was just and in accordance to law OR was it just some 'bullshit' to justify removal of some members??? 

If political parties believe that what they did was RIGHT - there is no reason for them to even worry that the COURTS will decide that the party was wrong and did injustice?

What is a POLITICAL party or an association?

It is not an association or group of people that agree to be continuously LOYAL and unquestioning about the actions/omissions of some leader? Then, that is no more a 'democratic' society or political party. 

Any association or society is like Malaysia - they are a mix of people, all with different views and opinions about all kinds of issues - even on who should lead. People also change their minds when situation and leaders change. 

Malaysians once were OK with ISA and Detention Without Trial - then they changed their view and position and felt that it was 'WRONG' - they wanted no more Detention Without Trial - they wanted FAIR TRIALS - and no more wanted Detention Without Trial - where the Minister decided whether one is 'GUILTY' and should be punished with 'detention' or 'restrictions' indefinitely. They preferred that it is the COURT that decides on GUILT and sentence. Hence, Najib's government abolished the ISA(Internal Security Act) and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.

But, Malaysia still continues to have Detention Without Trial laws like the new Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA)  and the amended Prevention of Crime Act 1959(POCA) - but sadly PM Anwar(who once said he opposed Detention Without Trial laws) has DONE NOTHING to repeal Detention Without Trial - If ONE is truly GUILTY, the Courts will decide and punish accordingly...

THUS, why is PM Anwar's MADANI GOVERNMENT afraid of the Independent Courts - Why do you not want to restore ACCESS to political party members access to COURTS - for even political party incumbent leaders CAN MAKE MISTAKES and cause injustice to members. REPEAL Section 18C NOW.

WHY DO PEOPLE JOIN POLITICAL PARTIES AND societies? 

People join political parties or other societies primarily because they AGREE with the principles and issues that the particular party stands for >>> but in Malaysia, many political party seem to have NO CLEAR BASIC stance, or principles... on issues - Healthcare, Education, Workers/Labour, On Climate Change and Environment, on RARE Earth, etc >>> This is very different from party election Manifestos, which is usually is just for General Elections > not really reflective of the party's PERMANENT position.

Of course, some join for 'ulterior motives' more so when the party has Federal or State power in government - they join to increase chances of getting government contracts/projects, to improve the chances to get scholarships for their kids, increase opportunity to get low-cost houses and/or land, to get... After GE14, when BN lost - we saw a large exodus of members/leaders even MPs/ADUNs from BN to the parties that won and wai in government. CONCLUSION - these were those that never really believed in the Party principles and stance - they readily move to 'who' has government power....MMMM.. 

What do this POLITICAL Party stand for? 

Let us LOOK at other countries where POLITICAL parties have CLEAR STANCE and positions..  

In US, for example we have 2 major parties, where their position and differences are KNOWN and constant..

 Another example, from UK 

Key Differences Between Major UK Parties

• Conservative Party (Tories - Blue):
  • Position: Centre-right.
  • Ideology: Conservative, unionist, free-market economics.
  • Key Focus: Lower taxation, strong law and order, and national security.
  • Economic View: Favors limited government intervention and encourages private sector competition.

• Labour Party (Red):
  • Position: Centre-left.
  • Ideology: Social democratic, historically linked to trade unions.
  • Key Focus: Strengthening public services (e.g., NHS), reducing economic inequality, and supporting workers' rights.
  • Economic View: Supports higher investment in public infrastructure, potential nationalization of key industries like energy.

• Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems - Yellow):
  • Position: Centrist.
  • Ideology: Liberal, pro-European.
  • Key Focus: Human rights, individual liberty, civil liberties, and environmentalism.
  • Economic View: Balances supporting the needy with promoting business freedom.

• Green Party (Green):
  • Position: Left-wing, often to the left of Labour.
  • Key Focus: Radical climate action, social justice, and environmental protection.
  • Economic View: Opposes "consumerist capitalism" and advocates for a rapid transition to renewable energy.

In Malaysia, it is NOT SO CLEAR what our major political party stands for is NOT CLEAR...many political parties are personality driven or are 'breakaways' from some other party - BUT the question is what exactly is their stance.

PH once promised LOCAL Council Elections, The PM will not be the Finance Minister, Sedition ACT will be repealed - but what happened?

SADLY, in Malaysia many of the OPPOSITION parties have its roots in that OLD BN parties - and somehow the bad practices in UMNO, MIC, MCA, etc creeps into these new parties like PKR (led by a former UMNO leader), BERSATU (led by a former BN leader), MUDA (started by a former BN leader) - thus, where are the NEW political parties - we need NEW political parties not led by politicians from other parties...

We have PSM(Parti Socialis Malaysia) and the PRM(Party Rakyat Malaysia) - but somehow they still fail to attract sufficient support from Malaysians...

WHICH Malaysian political party is on the side of WORKERS? Which political parties is on the side of FARMERS and fisher folk?

Which political party is for FREE Education until University? For UNIVERSAL affordable healthcare for all?

Which political party is for the OLD-AGED - that will ensure government old-age day care centers in all towns, government nursing homes for the AGED, monthly welfare aid to old folks sufficient to cover their living expenses monthly?

YES - these are OLD folks, no more able to contribute to the economy - but we have a DUTY OF CARE for these Malaysians who contributed for years to make Malaysia what it is?

 

 

 

 

• • 
    

Failure Of Public Prosecutor to Apply to Court for Compensation for Victims of Crime to Be Paid by the Convicted, Including Those Who Cause Death, is Unforgivable

 

Media Statement – 6/4/2026

Failure Of Public Prosecutor to Apply to Court for Compensation for Victims of Crime to Be Paid by the Convicted, Including Those Who Cause Death, is Unforgivable

There is an ongoing debate whether the perpetrator in recent fatal drunk driving case should be charged for murder or some other crimes. Whatever crime, the sentence only if convicted, does not do justice to victims unless victims are also compensated for their loss/suffering by the convicted criminal.

Compensation for Victims of Crime by the Convicted Criminal

Victims of crime, including those who were ‘killed’ in drunk driving fatal accidents, deserve to be compensated by the convicted criminal, and this RIGHT is already there in Malaysian law, in section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code but victims, many a time, are do not compensations because of failure of Public Prosecutor Dusuki and Public Prosecutors before him who failed to apply to court for compensation for victims.

Section 426A states ‘…. the Court before which an accused is convicted of an offence shall, upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order against the convicted accused for the payment by him, …. of a sum to be fixed by the Court as compensation to a person who is the victim of the offence committed by the convicted accused… ‘

If and when an application is made by the Public Prosecutor, ‘the Court may hold an inquiry as it thinks fit’, and amongst the things that the court will consider include ‘(a) the nature of the offence; (b) the injury sustained by the victim; (c) the expenses incurred by the victim;(d) the damage to, or loss of, property suffered by the victim;…’

Section 432  provides that when the Court orders the convicted to pay the victim ‘…compensation, the Court making the order may in its discretion do all or any of the following things, namely- (a) allow time for the payment of that sum; (b) direct payment of that sum to be made by instalments; (c) issue a warrant for the levy of that sum by distress and sale of any property belonging to that person;… (e) direct that that person be searched and that any money found on him when so searched or which in the event of his being committed to prison, may be found on him when taken to prison shall be applied towards the payment of that sum, the surplus, if any, being returned to him:…’

Even when the Court orders the victim to be compensated, the right to sue for more is still preserved in law.

Section 426A (4) states ‘To the extent of the amount which has been paid to a person, or to the representatives of a person, under an order for compensation, any claim of such person or representatives for damages sustained by reason of the offence shall be deemed to have been satisfied, but the order for payment shall not prejudice any right to a civil remedy for the recovery of any property or for the recovery of damages beyond the amount of compensation paid under the order.’ That means that the victim still can claim for more damages and compensation from the convicted criminal.

Public Prosecutor Fails to Apply for Compensation for Victims

Whilst there are very few reported cases, where the court ordered victims to be compensated, the norm seems to indicate that the Public Prosecutor failed to apply to court for the victim to be compensated.

Now, we no longer should just be interested that the convicted criminal be punished, but are also concerned about victim of the crime – their right to be compensated.

Restorative justice aims to repair harm caused by crime by focusing on victim needs, offender accountability, and community involvement rather than just mere punishment.

Whilst monetary compensation for victims by the perpetrators is the first step, the State need to look beyond that including support and rehabilitation of victims.

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls on Public Prosecutors to show concern for victims of crime, and never again fail, intentionally or otherwise, to apply to the Court so that victims of crime will be compensated by convicted criminals;

Sec 426 must be amended – giving right of Victims to apply for compensation, etc

MADPET calls for the amendment of Section 426, to give the Courts the power to act on their own even when the Public Prosecutor fails to apply for compensation for victims;

MADPET also calls, for victims to be given the RIGHT to directly apply to court for an order for compensation by the convicted criminal; and

Victims must be informed of trial dates by Public Prosecutor

Noting that in many criminal trials, the victims today do not even know that the accused has been charged in Court, or when the trial dates are, it is important to enact a law, requiring the Public Prosecutor to mandatorily inform all victims, that the accused has been charged and the trial dates of the criminal trial. Victim’s right to know who is the perpetrator of the crime and the right to attend trials should be a fundamental right. Victims also have a right to know what happened to their property that was stolen – was the property recovered or what happened to it.

It is a sad state and unacceptable state of affairs, when victims are kept in the dark – not knowing that the perpetrators have been identified, arrested, charged and even convicted. Victims rightly must be informed of the details of the identity of the convicted perpetrators, including their MyKad or Passport details, address, etc. sufficient for victims to be able to consider taking legal action against said perpetrators to get compensation and/or damages.

Section 107A Criminal Procedure Code, which came into force in 2007, now states (1) Any person who has given information under section 107 may request for a report on the status of the investigation of the offence complained of in his information from the officer in charge of a police station where he gave the information. -  this provision is to ensure that persons who lodges reports, including victims, have a right to know the status of the investigation BUT for victims of the crime, they should not be required to make any request, but should reasonably be informed as of right when the accused is charged, the trial dates, and also the fact of conviction and sentence. Victims should also be furnished with charge sheets, and also the facts of the case the accused admitted to if the accused pleads guilty, and/or a copy of the court judgment – and rightly this duty should fall on the Public Prosecutor.

Legal Presumption that criminal convictions is proof of crime in claims by Victims for compensation

Malaysia also needs to amend laws, whereby a criminal conviction will raise the legal presumption of guilt for the offences committed by the convicted against the victims, to make it easier for victims in particular to succeed in claims for compensation from the convicted criminals. Today, generally a criminal conviction is often inadmissible in a subsequent civil case, thus requiring victims to proof again the liability of the convicted in civil suits to succeed in a claim for damages/compensation – which is an onerous burden and unnecessary burden that hinders justice be done for victims.

MADPET also calls for Section 426 to be reviewed and amended, so that loss suffered by the families/dependents by the death of the victim who was killed by the perpetrator of the crime of murder and/or driving under the influence also be specifically considered by the Criminal Court Judge in determining the amount of compensation that the convicted be ordered to pay the families/dependents.

Justice must be done and be seen to be done. The administration of criminal justice in Malaysia need to ensure that victims of crimes get at the very least compensation/damages from the convicted. 

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

The statement was carried by Malaysiakini in their SNAPSHOTS 

Law

• Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) today argued that the debate over murder charges in fatal drunk driving cases overlooked a more important issue: justice for victims.

  The group highlighted that Malaysian laws, particularly Section 426A of the Criminal Procedure Code, provide for compensation. However, it said that in practice, victims often do not receive compensation, accusing public prosecutors of frequently failing to apply to the court for such orders.

  In a statement, Madpet coordinator Charles Hector said when applications are made, courts have the authority to assess compensation based on factors such as the nature of the offence, injuries suffered, expenses incurred, and property loss.

  He said courts may also enforce payment through instalments, property seizure, or other means. Importantly, victims retain the right to pursue additional civil claims beyond the compensation awarded in criminal proceedings.

  He also criticised the justice system for focusing on punishment rather than restorative justice, which includes repairing harm and addressing victims’ needs. - Malaysiakini, Snapshots, 6/4/2026

 

After abolishment of death penalty, it’s time to seek compensation from convicted murderers

• By FocusM
• 04/04/2023
• in Featured, Mainstream, Top

IN welcoming the Dewan Rakyat’s passing of the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill (AMDPB) 2023 yesterday (April 3), the Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) now calls on the public prosecutor to diligently apply for compensation from the convicted in criminal trials for victims of crime, including family members of murder victims.

The non-governmental organisation (NGO) said a perusal of reported cases shows that the public prosecutor seldom applies for compensation for victims, including the family of murder victims.

“In some cases, they just apply for prosecution cost,” MADPET co-founder Charles Hector pointed out in his latest blog. “The government is considering this but it must be pointed out that it is already provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code.”

Charles Hector

Section 426 states that the public prosecutor can apply for an order against the convicted accused for payment by him of a sum to be fixed by the court as compensation.

Moreover, the same section also states that the order for payment shall not prejudice any right to a civil remedy for the recovery of any property or damages beyond the amount of compensation paid under the order.

“This means that victims of murder or other crimes can still commence a civil court action to claim damages,” explained Hector who is also a human rights lawyer.

“Altantuya Sharibu’s family did just that with the court finding that not just convicted murderers Sirul (Azhar Umar) and Azilah (Hadri) but also  political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda liable to their claim of unlawful killing of the deceased (Altantuya).”

In the legal suit, the government was vicariously liable as Sirul and Azilah were police officers. The accused were ordered to pay cost and RM5 mil in general, aggravated and exemplary damages to the deceased’s family, among others.

In a related development, MADPET also called on the Dewan Negara “to speedily pass the AMDPB 2023 and the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Bill 2023 so that it can be put in force as soon as possible.

The latter bill will enable the Federal Court to review the death sentence and life imprisonment imposed on a convicted person following the abolition of mandatory death penalty.

This will mean that the about 840 of the 1,320 prisoners on death row who have completed all appeals will have their death sentence reviewed by the Federal Court. Likewise, those who are currently serving life sentence will now be subject to “imprisonment for a term of not less than 30 years but not exceeding 40 years”. – April 4, 2023, Focus 

Enforce law compelling criminals to compensate victims’ families, govt told

4 days ago

V Anbalagan

Lawyers say Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be applied to require that offenders in road accident cases compensate their victims.

Section 426 of the CPC entitles the public prosecutor to apply for a court order that a convicted offender pay compensation to a victim in respect of any injury or loss of income or property suffered. (Envato Elements pic)

PETALING JAYA:

Lawyers are urging the government to enforce existing laws that require criminals to compensate the families of their victims, saying the measure would deliver justice and act as a deterrent to crime.

They said prosecutors should especially seek compensation orders on behalf of victims of murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and deaths caused by negligence — all of which are recognised as serious offences under the Penal Code.

Lawyers S Jayananda Rao, N Sivananthan and J S Naicker said the CPC already allows prosecutors to apply to the court for convicted persons to compensate their victims in cases that result in death or injury.

“Forcing a convict to make financial contributions could act as a deterrent to would-be offenders,” Jayananda told FMT, adding that, based on news reports, the number of road fatalities caused by drivers who disregard the law has been on the rise.

He was responding to the transport ministry’s proposal to amend the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA) to compel offenders to pay compensation to victims’ families.

The proposal followed the death of a motorcyclist in Klang who was struck by a driver allegedly under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Under Section 44 of the RTA, those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causing death face imprisonment of between 10 and 15 years, and a fine of between RM50,000 and RM100,000.

The punishment is heavier for repeat offenders, involving a jail term of between 15 and 20 years, and a fine of between RM100,000 and RM150,000.

Jayananda said there was no need to amend the RTA to provide for compensation, as the matter is already covered under Section 426 of the CPC.

Section 426(1A) and (1B) provide that a court may, on the application of the Public Prosecutor, order that a convicted accused pay compensation to a victim, or if the victim is deceased to their next-of-kin, in respect of any injury or loss of income or property suffered.

“This general provision could be utilised when the court finds an accused guilty of causing injuries or taking a life in a road mishap,” said Jayananda.

Sivananthan said compensation orders should not be confined to road accidents as it risked being seen as discriminatory and may be subject to legal challenge.

“The prosecution should apply for a compensation order upon securing a conviction in all offences,” he suggested.

The lawyer also said Section 432 of the CPC empowers a court to stipulate a timeline within which the compensation must be paid.

“However, the survivors or the victims’ families will have to enforce the ruling themselves, which has the same force as a civil judgment,” he said.

Sivananthan said enforcement, including by freezing an offender’s personal accounts or the sale and seizure of assets may involve time, effort and financial resources.

He said the government should consider amending the law to allow the families of victims in criminal cases, including road accidents, to recover compensation from the offenders’ Employees Provident Fund account.

J S Naicker, an insurance lawyer, explained that a motor insurance policy generally excludes liability when the driver is found to be under the influence of alcohol.

“However, an injured party, or the next-of-kin of a deceased victim, will not be deprived of damages under the RTA and the relevant motor policy if they succeed in a civil claim.”

Naicker explained that, in such circumstances, the insurer would satisfy the judgment and thereafter seek to recover the sum paid from the insured vehicle owner.

“If the ministry’s proposal is implemented, the intoxicated driver may be exposed to dual financial liability — namely, personal liability to compensate the victim, as well as an obligation to reimburse the insurer for any sum paid out.” - FMT, 2/4/2026