If Pakatan Harapan did not have to form a COALITION government with UMNO-BN, would Najib have been PARDONED the 1st time - Prison sentence cut in half, Fine of RM210 million reduced to RM50 million? And then pardoned a 2nd TIME so soon to be able to enjoy imprisonment at HOME if fine paid?
If Pakatan Harapan did not have to form a COALITION government with UMNO-BN, would Zahid Hamidi's criminal case been discontinued AFTER prosecution had successfully proven a PRIMA Facie case - resulting in a DNAA? And then have the Prosecution's Appeal been withdrawn with regards the Acquittal by High Court in a different case? If these did not happen, Zahid too may have been in prison now.
If Pakatan Harapan did not have to form a COALITION government with UMNO-BN, would Zahid Hamidi still be UMNO President and leader of BN? If the Home Minister did not give an EXEMPTION, then there may have been elections for the President of UMNO, and Zahid may have LOST.
On the question of PARDONS, people now realize that the Government (The Executive Branch) has the power to expedite PARDONS - this happened when Anwar Ibrahim was pardoned when Pakatan Harapan won in GE14 (possible the first abuse of power with regard Pardons). Then, it happened again with Najib - not once but twice Pardoned.
It became clear that the KING must or SHALL act on the advice of the Pardons Board - when the government contested the 'home arrest' pardon granted to Najib by the former KING.
So, the KING can only pardon as advised by the Pardons Board. If the Pardons Board say NO PARDON - the King cannot give a Pardon to whoever he pleases.
NOW, when the Attorney General, who is a member of the Pardons Board questions the PARDON and says no home imprisonment after the fine has been paid - MORE Questions arises?
It said two interpretations needed to be considered: that payment of the fine allows Najib to serve the rest of his jail time at home or that settlement of the penalty allows for a full pardon, which frees Najib.
Is this because the relationship between Anwar (and/or Pakatan Harapan) and BN has been strained especially after the Negeri Sembilan elections..or is it something else?
Now, NAJIB's Pardon has MANY LEGAL ISSUES concerning the sentence of HOUSE Arrest - apparently the House has now been gazetted as a place of detention(prison)
We needed a FAST law that defined HOUSE Arrest - and as such a LAW should have speedily enacted, or an existing law amended to deal with this new HOME imprisonment really, whereby it will be used for the very first time in Malaysia.
1) Does House Arrest mean that Najib/convicted have to stay within the House at all times? Can he walk around the House until the fence/gate?
2) VISITORS - in prison, there are rules as to VISITORS, and the number of visits allowed and for how long? In House Arrest, does the same rule apply - or he is free to have many VISITORS at a time? Can he have Birthday parties? Do VISITORS need prior approval of the Prison Department? Will there be an officer on duty to deal with visit request, visitors, etc.. ??
3) Communication - In Prison, letters sent out are vetted, and so to for incoming mail? Can he use the COMPUTER and internet freely - or will it be restricted?
4) FOOD - In prison, what you eat is fixed. During House Detention, are you free to eat STEAK, Lobster or meals as you desire or please?
5) When HOUSE arrest, will the other occupants permitted to live with him be restricted - just spouse and children already living in the same house? What about DOMESTIC workers - how many? Would the OTHERS be checked everytime they enter or leave - to prevent Prisoner Najib from illegally receiving things from OUTSIDE, or sending things outside?
The FINANCIAL BURDEN on the Government issue.
When it comes to HOUSE ARREST, there is also a FINANCIAL BURDEN for the State? How many Prison Officers placed at place of detention 24 hours a day? Will CCTV be placed for continuous of the prisoner? Will the CCTV infringe in the privacy of others normally resident?
Will an ELECTRONIC Monitoring device be placed on the prisoner?
When and if the Prisoner has to go to HOSPITAL or Court - the Prison Department will have to make arrangements - for after all, he is a PRISONER.
In Prison, a prisoner has time to exercise - what about a prisoner under HOUSE ARREST??
Why did PM Anwar, the Government or even BN push for a speedy enactment of a LAW - that would clarify how a HOME Imprisonment be carried out - this could have been long before Najib was entitled to be IMPRISONED at Home?
The issue of HOUSE ARREST came up some time ago - One must ask WHY the LAW on HOUSE Arrest was not enacted speedily? Why did Zahid Hamidi and BN push for the law to be enacted fast?
If a LAW was enacted, then many things will be settled in the Law passed by Parliament > now there maybe MORE court cases to define the scope and conditions on Najib's HOUSE IMPRISONMENT - after all NAJIB is, I believe, the very first convicted criminal who will be serving his prison sentence at HOME.
Should HOUSE ARREST be available for other convicted prisoners soon - maybe those who committed MINOR offences, and have already served HALF or TWO THIRD of their sentence in PRISON, or maybe for very senior prisoners? If NOT, Najib's House imprisonment may be seen as a DISCRIMINATORY - only for Past PMs and MINISTERS?
Now, the ATTORNEY GENERAL, who was part of the Pardons BOARD, are raising questions that need to be referred to the court? He should have been clear of the LAW - and made sure that what he as part of Pardons Board was clear LEGALLY.. is this a NEW issue or doubt that just arised after Najib paid the fine, which was pre-condition for him to leave PRISON and be imprisoned at HOME? If Najib was to be released after he paid the FINE, then the PARDON would have said that. Me, and maybe all of us, believed that Najib be moved to HOME IMPRISONMENT only after he paid his 'reduced' FINE ...
It said two interpretations needed to be considered: that payment of the fine allows Najib to serve the rest of his jail time at home or that settlement of the penalty allows for a full pardon, which frees Najib.
In my OPINION, it is ABSURD to say or suggest that a person sentenced to imprisonment and FINE can go FREE when he pays his FINE?
NOTE that Malaysian today know that the KING cannot PARDON as he pleases > The KING's Pardon is confined to the decision/advice of the Pardons BOARD.
The KING has to do 'as advised' by the Pardons Board (Attorney General, MINISTER and 3 Others) - does the KING have a VOTE or NOT in the Pardons Board that the King presides? So, was the Pardon DECISION a 5-0 decision, a 4-1 decision or a 3-2 decision, assuming the requirement is a simple majority decision. {still not clear how the 3 others appointed - by the KING on the advise of the PM? or by the KING as he pleases - again confusion as we do not have a PARDONS law that would have told us how the 3 other members of the Pardon Board is chosen > it most likely the KING acting on the advice of the Prime MINISTER - because if it entirely up to the KING's discretion, it would have been stated so in our FEDERAL CONSTITUTION}
The KING's Pardon can only be issued pursuant to the decision/advice of the Pardons BOARD.
If that be the case, the Pardon should no more reasonably a 'royal prerogative' where the COURTS in the past said that Courts cannot do a JUDICIAL REVIEW - but now, it has become clear it is in fact a decision of the Pardons Board, which therefore can and must be subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Doubts were settled when the Malaysian government challenged the former KING's additional pardon on house arrest...???...and the HIGH COURT decided that the King's additional PARDON made by himself was invalid.
IT will be most interesting to see how the COURTS deal with Pardon Powers - as it would be establishing a lot of 'firsts' - including what amounts to reasonable and included in PARDON POWERS...
It is important to PERUSE the Judgment of
[42] The Deputy DG in her affidavit affirmed on 16 October 2025, stated that at the Pardons Board Meeting, the applicant's request for full pardon was deliberated upon. The written opinion of the Attorney General as well as the report and recommendation of the Prisons Department was presented for consideration of the Pardons Board. She then added in her affidavit:
(h) selanjutnya, YDPA Ke-16 telah mencadangkan supaya Pemohon diberi pengampunan penuh dan meminta supaya ahli respondent Keempat memberi pandangan. Majoriti ahli-ahli Responden Keempat menyatakan Pemohon tersebut tidak sewajarnya diberikan pengampunan penuh;
(i) kemudiannya, YDPA Ke-16 telah mencadangkan supaya Pemohon diberikan pengurangan 50 peratus bagi hukuman penjara. Setelah mendengar daripada ahli-ahli Responden Keempat, YDPA Ke-16 telah memutuskan untuk membebaskan Pemohon pada tarikh pembebasan awal iaitu pada 23.8.2028 dan denda yang perlu dibayar iaitu sebanyak RM210,000,000.00 dikurangkan kepada RM50,000,000.00. Namun, sekiranya denda tidak dibayar, tempoh penjara bagi Pemohon akan ditambah selama setahun di mana pembebasan beliau adalah pada 23.8.2029 ("keputusan 50% YDPA Ke-16").
[43] Having perused "PS4" I find the contents to confirm her averment.
[44] It is therefore patently clear that the Pardons Board tendered its advice on the proposed full pardon as well as the 50% reduction in imprisonment term. More importantly is the fact that only one decision was made by the YDPA during that meeting, namely the reduction of the imprisonment term and fine. There was absolutely no mention of a house arrest. - DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS [2026] 2 CLJ 385
It is CLEAR from this judgment that if the PARDONS BOARD says 'NO' then the KING cannot issue the PARDON - thus KING bound to act as advised by the Pardons Board. It is NOT that it is enough that the matter was raised during the Pardons Board meeting - the PARDONS Board must AGREE - thus the former King's proposal of FULL Pardon for Najib was rejected by the Pardons Board.
This Court JUDGMENT was not appealed, and thus the JUDGMENT stands as law... until some other HIGHER court decides otherwise or the Constitution is amended, or a NEW Federal law is enacted covering PARDON powers.
Can the Pardons Board advise the KING to grant a pardon - that Najib be placed under HOUSE arrest or imprisonment at HOME? Not yet, says COURT, until legal provision in place for IMPRISONMENT at Home enacted???
Well, the COURT was of the opinion that Pardon Powers in Malaysian law cannot ORDER House Arrest... The judge in that Najib's was most clear that 'a house arrest order is not capable of execution, there being no legal provision for such mechanism in Malaysia.' and even if the Prison Act was relied on - the Judge said it was very different - and that statutory power was given to the Commissioner General alone - thus it was not a power that the Pardons Board or King/Ruler can order under Pardon powers - the fact that the High Court decision was not appealed - that judgment stands now as LAW.
Thus Najib's 2nd Pardon that he be imprisoned at home is still INVALID, in my opinion and cannot be implemented as the law allowing such imprisonment has YET to be enacted. If laws were enacted to make HOUSE ARREST a power that Pardons Board could advise the KING, then it would be OK > but NO such law was enacted, and neither was the existing PRISONS ACT amended, allowing KING/RULER to exercise this power which now is exerciseable ONLY by the Commissioner General of PRISONs ..
[68] In any event, I am of the view that a house arrest order is not capable of execution, there being no legal provision for such mechanism in Malaysia. The applicant's counsel submitted that the means for implementation is in s. 43 of the Prison Act 1995. ...[73] In light of these provisions, it can hardly be said that this is the mechanism to implement a house arrest. In a release on licence, the Commissioner General decides on the duration. In the case of the addendum order, the duration of the house arrest has already been stipulated, leaving no discretion for the Commissioner General. He is also not given any discretion to recall the applicant to prison. Clearly the house arrest in the addendum order is at variance with the provisions relating to release on licence. It is my view that the release on licence is a statutory power given to the Commissioner General alone.
This existing DILEMMA with PARDON powers to order HOME/HOUSE Detention/Imprisonment was known by the Government, including the Attorney General after that High Court case that dealt with the former King's additional Pardon order about Home IMPRISONMENT - so WHY did the Pardons Board advice the KING it was OK to use PARDON POWERS - to order Najib to serve his remaining imprisonment sentence at HOME?
If they wanted it, then the GOVERNMENT should have created/enacted legal provision for such mechanism in Malaysia - and clearly enacted a law that allowed KING/RULERS pardon power to include orders that prison sentence (or remaining prison sentence) could be done at HOME?
SO, the question is whether PM Anwar/Pakatan Harapan/Current Government really wanted Najib to serve his remaining PRISON SENTENCE at HOME? If they did, then the NEEDED laws would have speedily been enacted - but not even the BILL has been tabled. The PRISON ACT too could have been amended - allow imprisonment at HOME by order of the Pardons Board or the King/Rulers > now that could have been done fast.
Did Zahid Hamidi, UMNO and BN want Najib to be able to spend the remaining of his prison sentence at HOME - if so, why did they not push for the enactment of the needed laws?
As Malaysians know, there is going to be a BATTLE for States and Federal Government between Pakatan Harapan(which Anwar leads), Barisan Nasional(which is led by Zahid Hamidi and UMNO), and the PAS-led Perikatan National, and other parties like BERSAMA, BERSATU maybe, MUDA, PSM, the Sabah/Sarawak parties > and they have been 'pacts' and changing 'pacts' - and 'gymnastics' > and UNCERTAINTY as to how these parties are going to contest.
There has been 'tensions' between the earlier pact between PH-BN, and so pacts have been changing. WILL they all eventually RUN alone for the upcoming General Elections in 2027? So, is this issue of NAJIB's Pardon part of this 'play'?
Pakatan Harapan(PH) is in trouble as people have indicated in the past 3 State Elections. BN seem to be enjoying a 'come back' in the Johor and Negeri Sembilan elections > but how will VOTERS vote in the Federal Elections is still UNCERTAIN - a victory at State elections may not lead to victory in the General Elections > as people may choose not to give the same parties their VOTES in both State and Federal elections.
People now has MORE CHOICES - and the problem is that the DIFFERENCES between the various different available parties are NOT CLEAR > as most parties do not have a clear position on the various issues still.
If corruption and abuse is considered, then PAS has an upper hand as it does not have leaders in court facing such charges but BN and PH does. PAS in the past suffered the effect of Islamophobia > but now with PN, it is a multi-racial coalition > but CLEAR DIFFERENCES are still not there.
So, is this issue of NAJIB's Pardon really part of 'struggle' to woo Malaysian voter support?
FOR certain, we need a FEDERAL law governing PARDONS .. which will make clear the PARDON Process, and possible PARDON powers. For one, in my opinion, PARDON powers cannot overturn COURT Convictions - but can vary sentences imposed.. to overturn CONVICTIONS only the COURTS have the power.
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak at the Kuala Lumpur Courts Complex in October. (File photo by Suhaimi Yusuf/The Edge)
KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 6): Datuk Seri Najib Razak should remain in prison until the conditional pardon order on his house arrest is clarified, the Attorney General's Chambers said on Friday.
It said the delay is not meant to dispute the decree of the King, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, but to clarify a passage in the order concerning the effect of paying the RM50 million fine.
“The Attorney General’s Chambers will take the next action after studying and clarifying the matter,” the statement read.
It said two interpretations needed to be considered: that payment of the fine allows Najib to serve the rest of his jail time at home or that settlement of the penalty allows for a full pardon, which frees Najib.
The AGC said this uncertainty affects a court order issued after Umno settled the fine for Najib earlier on Friday. That order stated that Najib be immediately freed and also directed that the former Umno president spend the rest of his jail time under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028.
It said there are also implications on a separate 15-year prison term for the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) case, which is due to begin once the SRC International Sdn Bhd sentence ends.
“Given that the issues raised involve complex legal questions, have implications for how the royal pardon and the court order are to be carried out, and present an unprecedented situation, the Attorney General’s Chambers is of the view that clear and definitive legal clarification must be obtained before any further steps are taken,” the statement read.
It was widely reported that the Pardons Board had allowed Najib to serve the balance of his SRC sentence at home until Aug 23, 2028, if he paid the RM50 million fine and complied with the other conditions.
In a separate declaration dated Nov 6, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail gazetted Najib’s residence at No 11, Jalan Langgak Duta, Kuala Lumpur, as a prison under Section 3 of the Prison Act 1995. The declaration covers the buildings and grounds of the property.
Najib was originally sentenced to 12 years' jail and fined RM210 million after he was found guilty in August 2020 of siphoning RM42 million from SRC. He began serving the prison sentence in 2022 after exhausting all court appeals.
In 2024, the Pardons Board, chaired by the then king, halved Najib's jail time and reduced the fine to RM50 million.
Najib made a second appeal for clemency, and the board issued the current order on Sept 18.
Najib is due serve another 15 years in prison for corruption and money laundering involving RM2.3 billion of 1MDB funds.
That sentence is due to start after the SRC prison term ends, but Najib has not exhausted all judicial appeals in that case. - EDGE, 6/11/2026
The Attorney General's Chambers said the legal implications of the discharge order for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak on Friday should be referred to the court without delay to obtain clear directions and avoid conflicting interpretations of the orders in force. (File photo by Zahid Izzani/The Edge)
KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 7): The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has denied challenging the validity of the conditional royal pardon granted to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, stressing that it is merely seeking legal clarity on the implementation of the pardon alongside existing court orders.
In a statement on Saturday, the AGC said it had neither questioned nor sought to suspend the conditional pardon granted by the King, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, rejecting allegations that the attorney general had exceeded his powers or defied the royal decree.
Instead, the AGC said the issue requiring judicial determination concerns the legal implications of a discharge order issued by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Friday, following Najib's payment of a RM50 million fine.
In particular, the AGC is seeking clarity on whether Najib's prison sentence in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case has been completed and the implications for the commencement of his sentence in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) case. SRC is a former subsidiary of 1MDB.
The discharge order authorised Najib's immediate release following payment of the fine, while also stating that he should serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028, pursuant to a conditional pardon order dated Sept 18, 2026.
According to the AGC, the legal question is whether the discharge order merely permits Najib to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under house arrest, or effectively means that his sentence in the case has been completed.
The distinction is significant because the High Court's sentencing order in the 1MDB case stipulates that Najib's prison sentence in that case should begin only after he completes his SRC sentence.
The High Court had also dismissed an application to stay the execution of his sentence in the 1MDB case on Oct 14, 2026.
"If the sentence in the SRC case remains in force, there is no issue concerning the implementation of the remainder of that sentence in accordance with the conditional pardon order," the AGC said.
"Conversely, if the SRC sentence has been completed from a legal standpoint, its implications for the commencement of the sentence in the 1MDB case must be determined," it added.
The AGC said the two possibilities carry different legal implications and should not be resolved based on assumptions or unilateral interpretations.
It also rejected allegations made in a Friday statement by Najib's lawyers from Shafee & Co that the attorney general had exceeded his powers, defied the King's decree, disregarded court orders or caused Najib to be unlawfully detained.
The AGC maintained that the royal prerogative of a pardon under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution and the judiciary's authority to interpret the legal effect of an order are two distinct matters.
Seeking a court ruling on the implementation of an order, it said, does not amount to questioning the authority of the party that issued it.
The AGC further argued that an immediate judicial determination is necessary to safeguard Najib's own rights.
If the SRC sentence has legally ended, continued detention under that sentence could result in Najib being held longer than permitted by law, it said.
On the other hand, if the sentence remains in force, its implementation must comply with the terms of the conditional pardon and relevant court orders.
The AGC therefore said the legal implications of the discharge order on Friday should be referred to the court without delay to obtain clear directions and avoid conflicting interpretations of the orders in force.
"This step is not intended to delay or frustrate the implementation of the conditional pardon order, but rather to avoid contradictions in the implementation of existing orders and ensure that no sentence is carried out unlawfully," it said.
The AGC reiterated its commitment to upholding the royal institution, respecting court orders and ensuring that sentences are carried out lawfully. - EDGE, 7/11/2026
Posts
