The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is seeking to have Iris Koh, founder of the group Healing the Divide, and her husband, Raymond Ng, declared as vexatious litigants. In a High Court hearing on July 15, 2026, the AGC argued that the couple has habitually and persistently initiated groundless legal proceedings, effectively weaponizing the civil justice system for collateral purposes. The state’s legal representatives described this pattern as a form of lawfare, alleging that the pair uses lawsuits to harass others and raise funds.
A vexatious litigant is a legal designation for someone who repeatedly files lawsuits without reasonable grounds, often to abuse the court process or cause distress to opponents. If the High Court grants the AGC’s application, the couple would be required to obtain the court’s permission before starting any new civil lawsuits or continuing with existing ones. This measure is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial system and prevent the misuse of court resources.
The AGC highlighted several civil cases initiated by the couple, noting that many of these actions involve defamation claims. Prosecutors contend that the couple’s litigation strategy is not aimed at achieving genuine legal remedies but rather serves as a business model to generate public attention and financial support. By seeking this order, the government aims to curb what it characterizes as an abuse of the legal process that burdens both the courts and the individuals being sued.
In response, legal counsel appointed for the couple has argued that the orders sought by the AGC would be unfair. The defense maintains that the couple should retain their fundamental right to access the courts and pursue legal action when they believe they have been wronged. The proceedings underscore a significant tension between ensuring public access to justice and preventing the exploitation of legal mechanisms for non-legal objectives.
The outcome of this application remains to be seen, as the High Court weighs the arguments from both sides. If the court rules in favor of the AGC, it would mark a significant restriction on the couple’s ability to engage in future civil litigation. For the public, this case highlights the high threshold required for the court to intervene in an individual's right to sue, balancing the protection of the legal system against the rights of litigants.