Listen to the article
Malaysian Court Rejects Former PM Najib’s House Arrest Bid, Orders Prison Return
A Malaysian High Court on Monday rejected former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s attempt to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, ruling that a royal order purportedly issued by the nation’s former king lacked constitutional validity.
Justice Alice Loke determined that the house arrest provision was “not a valid order” as it wasn’t properly discussed during the January 29 pardons board meeting chaired by then-King Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah. The judge emphasized that royal pardons must follow constitutional requirements and be based on the advice of the pardons board rather than made independently, as doing otherwise would “invite arbitrary decision.”
Najib, now 72, showed little emotion at the verdict, though his lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah later described the ruling as “shocking” and confirmed plans to appeal. Shafee argued that the decision effectively diluted the powers of Malaysia’s monarch, a point he intends to pursue in higher courts.
The former prime minister will continue serving his sentence in prison until August 2028, after the Pardons Board last year reduced his original 12-year term by half. Najib began his incarceration in August 2022 after exhausting all appeals, becoming Malaysia’s first former leader to be imprisoned.
The case stems from Najib’s 2020 conviction on charges of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering involving 42 million ringgit (approximately $10.3 million) channeled from SRC International, a former subsidiary of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) state fund.
The 1MDB scandal represents one of Southeast Asia’s largest corruption cases in recent memory. Shortly after taking office in 2009, Najib established the development fund, which investigators allege became a vehicle for massive financial fraud. At least $4.5 billion was reportedly stolen and laundered through complex networks of bank accounts across the United States and other countries.
The misappropriated funds allegedly financed Hollywood film productions and extravagant purchases including luxury hotels, a yacht, fine art, and jewelry. Public outrage over the scandal culminated in the historic 2018 election defeat of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), which had governed Malaysia continuously since independence from Britain in 1957.
Najib faces another critical legal moment this Friday when the High Court will rule on a second corruption trial directly linked to the 1MDB scandal. This case involves four charges of abuse of power related to obtaining over $700 million from 1MDB, along with 21 counts of money laundering involving the same amount.
If convicted, Najib could face up to 20 years in prison for each abuse of power charge and up to five years for each money laundering count. Throughout the proceedings, he has maintained his innocence, claiming he was deceived by Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho, who remains at large and is considered the mastermind behind the scheme.
Despite his conviction and imprisonment, Najib retains significant influence within UMNO, which has since become part of current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s unity government following the 2022 elections. This continuing political relevance highlights the complex interplay between Malaysia’s legal system and its political landscape.
The court’s decision represents another significant chapter in Malaysia’s ongoing efforts to address high-level corruption and enforce accountability among its political elite, while simultaneously navigating constitutional questions about the monarchy’s powers and the proper implementation of royal pardons.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Interesting development in the case of the former Malaysian PM. The court seems to have upheld the rule of law and constitutional processes over any special treatment. It will be worth following how this unfolds further on appeal.
This ruling highlights the importance of having a strong, independent judiciary that can check the powers of the executive and monarchy. Upholding due process is crucial for the integrity of the justice system.
The former PM’s lawyer arguing that the ruling dilutes the monarch’s powers is an interesting angle. The court will need to carefully balance the separation of powers and constitutional requirements in its final judgment.
This case underscores the complexities of the Malaysian political landscape and the delicate balance between the various branches of government. The judiciary’s independence will be tested as it navigates this high-profile matter.
Rejecting the house arrest order aligns with the principles of equal treatment under the law. It will be worth monitoring how this impacts public perception of the justice system’s credibility in Malaysia.
Agreed. Upholding the rule of law, regardless of one’s political status, is crucial for maintaining public trust in the justice system.
The court’s decision to reject the house arrest order on constitutional grounds is commendable. It sends a clear message that no one is above the law, even former heads of state. Curious to see how this plays out.
The court’s emphasis on following due process and constitutional requirements is a positive sign. It suggests the Malaysian judiciary is willing to stand firm against attempts to circumvent the legal system.
That’s a fair assessment. Judicial independence is critical for ensuring a fair and impartial justice system, especially in high-profile cases involving former government officials.