Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s legal journey has been nothing short of controversial, particularly with the introduction of a royal addendum that has generated significant debate. The former prime minister’s attempt to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest is at the center of this complex legal battle, with the royal addendum becoming a key element in the unfolding events.
What is the Royal Addendum?
The royal addendum, which Najib claims was issued by the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is a crucial yet contested document in his legal saga. Some view the addendum as a clarification of the royal prerogative, a right of the monarch to grant pardons or reprieves, while others worry it could undermine the judiciary’s independence. The issue is further complicated by conflicting reports about whether such an addendum even exists.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
On January 6, 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled in a 2-1 majority decision to grant Najib leave to commence a judicial review on the royal addendum. This decision allowed him to challenge the addendum’s existence and seek to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.
Judge Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril, who sided with Najib’s appeal, noted that Najib’s son, Datuk Mohamad Nizar, obtained a copy of the addendum from the office of the Sultan of Pahang on August 17, 2024. The addendum was accompanied by instructions that it could not be used without the Sultan’s permission. After obtaining consent from the Sultan on December 2, 2024, Najib filed the addendum with the court, ensuring the legal process was followed.
Despite the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow the judicial review, this does not automatically guarantee that Najib will be granted house arrest. However, the ruling that the addendum exists and that the case must be heard by the Kuala Lumpur High Court has kept his legal team hopeful for a favorable outcome.
Controversy Over the Addendum’s Existence
Adding another layer of complexity to the case, on January 10, 2024, Najib’s legal team claimed that the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong had issued an additional order on January 29, 2024, allowing him to serve his sentence under house arrest. However, when the Federal Territories Pardons Board’s records were checked, no such order was found. The Prime Minister’s Department legal affairs division confirmed this after reviewing the official documents.
Furthermore, on January 3, 2024, the Istana Negara (Palace) issued a statement clarifying that all requests for pardons or sentence reductions must go through the Pardons Board again before being considered by the current Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in line with constitutional procedures. This process ensures that any changes to a convict’s sentence follow proper legal channels.
The Pardons Board’s Decision
On February 2, 2024, the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced that Najib’s 12-year prison sentence had been reduced to six years, and his RM210 million fine was halved to RM50 million. However, the statement made no mention of an additional order granting Najib the option to serve his sentence under house arrest, further fueling the controversy.
Despite this, Najib maintained that the former Agong had issued the addendum during the Pardons Board meeting on January 29, 2024, which he claimed was meant to allow him to complete his sentence at home rather than in prison.
Legal Actions and the Path Forward
On April 1, 2024, Najib filed an application for leave to seek judicial review. He is seeking a mandamus order, which would compel the respondents—including the government, Home Minister, Attorney-General, Pardons Board, and others—to verify the existence of the additional decree. If the decree is confirmed to exist, Najib is requesting that the authorities be compelled to enforce it and facilitate his transfer from Kajang Prison to his residence in Kuala Lumpur, where he hopes to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
Conclusion
As Najib continues his fight for house arrest, the royal addendum remains a contentious and central element in his legal strategy. Whether or not the addendum is proven to exist, and whether it will lead to his early release, remains to be seen. The ongoing judicial review and the scrutiny surrounding the Pardons Board’s decisions will likely shape the outcome of this high-profile case, which has captured national and international attention.
Post Comment