The Malaysian government is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling that granted former Prime Minister Najib Razak leave to pursue a judicial review of his prison sentence, with the ultimate goal of serving the remainder of his term under house arrest. The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) filed a motion seeking permission to appeal the decision to the Federal Court, the highest court in Malaysia. The AGC argues that the case raises significant legal questions of public interest concerning the interpretation of the law, emphasizing the importance of the Federal Court providing clarity on these matters. This move comes after the Court of Appeal, in a split decision, overturned a High Court ruling that had dismissed Najib’s initial attempt to access a purported royal decree granting him house arrest.
The crux of the matter lies in a document allegedly issued by the Pahang state palace, confirming the existence of a royal decree by the then-King, Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah, which purportedly allows Najib to serve his sentence at home. This decree, according to Najib’s legal team, was issued before the Sultan stepped down as King. The High Court initially rejected Najib’s attempt to introduce this document as evidence, deeming the supporting affidavits to be based on hearsay. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, accepting new evidence submitted by Najib’s lawyer and granting him leave to proceed with his judicial review application. This reversal prompted the government’s appeal to the Federal Court, seeking to uphold the initial High Court decision.
The AGC contends that the split decision within the Court of Appeal highlights differing interpretations of the law among the judges, necessitating the Federal Court’s intervention to resolve the ambiguity. The AGC emphasizes that clarifying the legal principles at stake is crucial not only for ensuring justice in Najib’s case but also for safeguarding the rule of law in Malaysia. This legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of considerable public interest, given Najib’s prominent political stature and the high-profile nature of the corruption charges against him. The dispute over the alleged royal decree further complicates the legal proceedings, bringing into question the interaction between the judicial system and the powers of the monarchy.
Najib, who was convicted in 2020 on charges of criminal breach of trust, abuse of power, and money laundering related to the 1MDB scandal, had his initial 12-year sentence reduced to six years by Sultan Abdullah prior to his abdication. He is currently serving that sentence. Najib asserts that the purported royal decree granting him house arrest was issued in conjunction with the pardon that reduced his sentence. The existence and validity of this decree are central to Najib’s current legal challenge. The government’s appeal to the Federal Court aims to definitively resolve these complex legal questions.
The saga surrounding Najib’s legal challenges has been further complicated by the government’s attempt to impose a gag order, preventing public discussion of the purported royal decree. Current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has stated that the document in question was presented to the Attorney-General and not to him or other members of the Pardons Board, adding another layer of intrigue to the proceedings. The differing accounts of the document’s handling and its ultimate legal significance highlight the contentious nature of the ongoing legal battle.
The implications of the Federal Court’s eventual decision are significant, impacting not only Najib’s immediate future but also potentially setting legal precedents for similar cases. The outcome will likely influence public perception of the judicial system and the exercise of royal prerogatives. The legal maneuvering surrounding Najib’s case continues to attract significant public attention, underscoring the ongoing national conversation about accountability, justice, and the rule of law in Malaysia. The Federal Court’s ruling will ultimately determine the course of Najib Razak’s imprisonment and potentially reshape the legal landscape pertaining to royal pardons and house arrest in Malaysia.
