SONY DSC
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has lost his appeal to serve the remainder of his corruption sentence under house arrest. The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled against him on Monday, determining that an order issued by the former king, Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, was invalid. This order had allowed Najib to complete his sentence at home instead of in Kajang Prison.
The case revolved around the interpretation of Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution, which grants the king powers to pardon, reprieve, and grant respite from sentences after consulting the Malaysian Pardons Board. However, High Court Judge Alice Loke Yee Ching stated that the king’s discretionary powers must be exercised “judiciously and for the public good.” The court found that the supplementary order permitting house arrest lacked proper adherence to constitutional procedures.
Najib’s legal team contended that the three components of Article 42(1) provided distinct avenues for clemency and maintained that the supplementary order functioned as a respite. They argued that this meant the king could act independently without the board’s advice. The court, however, observed that during a meeting, the king only considered reductions in the imprisonment term and fine, and did not consult on the house arrest issue.
The court emphasized that while clemency is a royal prerogative, it must conform to constitutional limits. Judge Loke stated, “It is more imperative that a proposed house arrest order be deliberated” at the board’s meeting, particularly as such an order is novel in the context of clemency.
In 2020, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years in prison and imposed a fine of RM210 million (approximately $51.6 million) related to the 1MDB corruption case. After unsuccessfully appealing the decision at both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, he sought clemency from the pardons board, which subsequently reduced his sentence to 6 years and the fine to RM50 million (around $12.3 million).
Following this, the king issued the controversial supplementary order allowing Najib to serve his reduced sentence at home. In response, Najib launched judicial review proceedings, aiming to compel the enforcement of this house arrest order. The High Court initially dismissed his application due to a lack of original documentation, but an appeal allowed Najib to present fresh evidence regarding the case.
After the recent ruling, Najib’s lawyer confirmed that the High Court’s dismissal stands. This decision marks a significant moment in Malaysian constitutional law, as it redefines judicial oversight of royal power. Previous rulings had generally upheld royal prerogatives, positioning this case as a potential turning point in the relationship between the monarchy and the judiciary.
The outcome has implications not only for Najib but also for the broader legal framework governing royal interventions in judicial matters in Malaysia.
