A purported royal document that would allow Malaysia’s imprisoned former Prime Minister, Najib Razak, to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest has never been hidden, said Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil on Wednesday. During a press briefing, Fahmi clarified that neither he nor the government had been informed or had received such a document.
This revelation comes amid growing public interest and legal contention surrounding Najib Razak’s incarceration and the conditions of his sentence. The document in question is reportedly linked to a royal pardon and sentence reduction granted last year by the former Malaysian King, Al-Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah, who stepped down in January. The ex-monarch’s palace recently issued and confirmed the authenticity of a letter detailing the existence of this document, which Najib’s legal team claims has been ignored by the government.
The palace’s confirmation has added fuel to a contentious debate, as the letter asserts that an “addendum order” was issued, purportedly allowing Najib to serve the rest of his sentence at home. This addendum was allegedly part of the broader royal pardon that reduced Najib’s 12-year sentence to six years.
Despite the palace’s stance, Minister Fahmi emphasized the government’s commitment to due process. “We take note that the Court of Appeal has remitted the case to the High Court, so we must consider the views and advice of the attorney-general on several matters to avoid prejudicing the case,” Fahmi stated. He further underlined the government’s adherence to the principle of subjudice, which prevents public officials from commenting on ongoing judicial proceedings to ensure an unbiased trial.
The legal battle took a significant turn on Monday when the Court of Appeal overturned a previous dismissal of Najib’s attempt to access the said document. The court’s decision means the case will now return to the High Court for further hearings under a different judge, marking a critical juncture in Najib’s quest to secure house arrest privileges.
Najib, convicted in 2020 of criminal breach of trust and abuse of power for his involvement in the multibillion-dollar 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, is currently serving a reduced sentence. The 1MDB case, which implicated multiple high-ranking officials and involved the embezzlement of billions of dollars, has been a focal point of Malaysian politics and legal scrutiny for years.
The royal pardon granted by the former King last year significantly altered the course of Najib’s punishment. Initially sentenced to 12 years in prison, Najib’s term was halved, a decision that was met with both relief from his supporters and outrage from critics. However, the recent revelation of an alleged addendum order raises questions about the extent of the former King’s leniency and the potential implications for judicial independence.
Najib’s legal team argues that the government’s failure to acknowledge and implement the house arrest provision constitutes a breach of the royal decree. The team maintains that the addendum order is legally binding and should be honored as part of the pardon agreement.
Minister Fahmi’s statement reflects the government’s cautious approach. He reiterated that the judiciary is the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute, distancing the executive branch from direct involvement. “We respect the legal process and the need for judicial independence,” Fahmi asserted, reinforcing the administration’s stance on non-interference in legal matters.
The case’s return to the High Court promises further legal scrutiny and public attention. The outcome could have far-reaching implications not only for Najib’s personal circumstances but also for the broader context of royal influence on judicial processes and the integrity of Malaysia’s legal system.
The issue has polarized public opinion. Supporters of Najib view the house arrest document as a rightful extension of the royal pardon, arguing that the former Prime Minister has already been subject to excessive political and legal persecution. Conversely, critics see it as an undue privilege that undermines the severity of his crimes and the integrity of Malaysia’s justice system.
The ongoing legal saga also has significant political ramifications. Najib, once a dominant figure in Malaysian politics, still wields considerable influence within the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and among his supporters. The outcome of this case could impact UMNO’s standing and influence within the ruling coalition, as well as public trust in Malaysia’s political and legal institutions.
