A pardon, reprieve or respite may be granted under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution following conviction.
Neither a pardon, a reprieve, nor a respite, constitutes an exoneration of guilt or removal of wrongdoing. They do not ‘wipe the slate clean’ of the prior conviction.
Chronology leading to Najib’s second pardon
Following the general election on 9 May 2018, it was reported that police conducted a series of searches and seizures in May 2018 at premises linked to Najib Razak and Rosmah Mansor in connection with investigations into 1MDB.
On 27 June 2018, police announced that the seized cash and valuables were estimated to be worth between RM900m and RM1.1bn, comprising 11,991 items of jewellery, 401 watches, 16 watch accessories, 234 pairs of spectacles, 306 handbags, and RM114,164,393.44 in cash in various denominations (collectively referred to as ‘seized assets’) [Pendakwa Raya v OBYU Holding Sdn Bhd (2023)].
And on 3 July 2018, Najib was arrested in connection with investigations concerning SRC International Sdn Bhd (SRC), reportedly a former subsidiary of 1MDB.
Following a lengthy trial in which 57 prosecution witnesses and 19 defence witnesses testified, on 28 July 2020, the High Court convicted Najib on all seven charges: one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust and three counts of money laundering involving RM42m in SRC funds and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment and a fine of RM210m [Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak (2020)].
On 8 December 2021, the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and sentence [Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor (2022)].
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Thereafter, on 23 August 2022, the Federal Court unanimously dismissed his final appeal [Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals (No 1) (2022)].
And finally, on 31 March 2023, the Federal Court dismissed his application to review the foregoing decision [Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2023].
Justice Nazlan, in the Hight Court, stated:
[2910] … What this court seeks to affirm is the sanctity of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. No one — not even one who was the most powerful political figure and the leader of the country enjoys a cloak of invincibility from the force of the law. Any notion to such effect is the very antithesis to art 8 of the Constitution that enshrines that rule that all persons are equal before the law. The ascension of the accused to the pinnacle of the leadership of the nation and his grip on political power reposed in him by the citizens of this country the position of trust in our system of constitutional democracy. His conviction of all seven charges concerning abuse of position, criminal breach of trust and money laundering constitutes nothing less than an absolute betrayal of that trust…”
The seized assets, made the subject of 1MDB-related forfeiture proceedings, were reportedly returned in the following manner, following the dismissal of such proceedings [OBYU Holding, supra note 2]:
- 17 June 2021 – RM114m in cash to Najib through his representative. Najib and Umno had both claimed the cash [OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [11], [16], [17]]
- By 22 June 2022 – 9,555 jewellery items, 277 handbags and all 234 pairs of spectacles to Rosmah, and 394 watches and 16 watch accessories to Najib [OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [2], [18] to [20]]
14 November 2022 – the Hight Court dismissed the forfeiture application concerning the remaining 2,435 jewellery items, seven watches and 29 handbags. The Attorney General’s Chambers did not appeal, and the items were to be returned to Najib and Rosmah [OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [20], [40], [78] to [79]].
2 February 2024 – It was announced that the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya had, on 29 January 2024, reduced Najib’s prison term from 12 years to six years and his fine from RM210m to RM50m relating to the SRC case.
26 April 2024 – The Malaysian Bar sought leave to apply for a judicial review to challenge this first pardon, naming the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, and Najib as respondents.
The Malaysian Bar seeks:
- to challenge the validity of the pardons board’s 2024 decision and advice
- an order prohibiting the pardons board from considering any pardon, reprieve or respite for Najib until all criminal proceedings against him have been exhausted, and until he has publicly accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed repentance and remorse
3 September 2024 – The cabinet decided to introduce legislation concerning house arrest. The proposal was subsequently announced by the prime minister during the tabling of Budget 2025 on 18 October 2024.
11 November 2024 – The High Court refused the Malaysian Bar leave to proceed with its judicial review [Badan Peguam Malaysia v Lembaga Pengampunan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya & Anor (2025)].
On 3 December 2024, the Malaysian Bar appealed to the Court of Appeal, with the decision of the COA to be delivered on 7 January 2027.
22 December 2025 – Justice Alice Loke, in the High Court, dismissed on its merits Najib’s judicial review application seeking confirmation and implementation of a purported addendum to the first pardon, which was said to permit him to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under ‘house arrest’. (Leave had been previously granted by the Court of Appeal [Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors (2025)] and affirmed by the Federal Court on 13 August 2025).
Justice Alice Loke held, among others, that the alleged addendum order was invalid because it had not been deliberated upon nor decided by the pardons board under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and that there was no legal mechanism to implement house arrest [Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors (2025)], stating:
[68] …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 Prisons Act, 1995…
[72] The release on licence in s 43 is a decision of the Commissioner General. He exercises his discretion, and in so doing is empowered to impose conditions for release. He determines the duration of the period of release and the place the prisoner is to proceed to. Notwithstanding the release, the prisoner can be recalled to prison at any time…
[73] …it can hardly be said that this is the mechanism to implement a house arrest… 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…
Although Najib appealed against the above, he later withdrew his appeal without liberty to file afresh.
The High Court’s judgment therefore remains undisturbed, ie the issue of ‘house arrest’ (if any) presently falls under the purview of the commissioner general of prisons.
26 December 2025 – In delivering the judgment on the 1MDB prosecution against Najib, Justice Collin Sequerah convicted Najib on four charges of abuse of power and 21 charges of money laundering involving about RMRM2.3bn. Najib was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and substantial financial penalties. The prison terms were ordered to commence after completion of the SRC sentence [Public Prosecutor v Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak (2026)].
Justice Collin Sequerah observed:
[6] The financial scandal that led to the charges being preferred against the accused was described in the press, locally and worldwide, as the largest episode of kleptocracy in the world. The scale of the plunder that took place (financially speaking, of course) made Atilla the Hun look like a choirboy by comparison…
29 December 2025 – Najib filed an appeal against his 1MDB conviction and sentence.
23 June 2026 – The Prison (Amendment) Bill 2026, which includes provisions concerning electronic monitoring devices (commonly used in ‘house arrests’ in other jurisdictions), was tabled for first reading by the government and subsequently referred to two parliamentary special select committees for further scrutiny. This amendment bill has not yet been passed into law.
The bill ends as follows: “This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure the amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.”
18 September 2026 – The legal affairs division of the Prime Minister’s Department announced that the pardons board met on 18 September 2026. The division also announced that Najib had been granted a conditional pardon, permitting him to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under house arrest until 23 August 2028, subject to payment of the reduced fine of RM50m.
‘House arrest’ and Umno’s RM50m fundraiser
Justice Alice Loke in the addendum order case held that there is no legal provision for a house arrest mechanism in Malaysia.
The home minister confirmed that no house arrest legislation exists and the relevant authorities are awaiting written notification of the terms of Najib’s second pardon. He also stated that the cabinet has approved in principle the drafting and tabling of a House Arrest Act.
The reference to Kenneth Lee Fook Mun’s previous purported house arrest by way of a pardon does not constitute legal authority nor justification for saying that Malaysia has a formal legal house arrest framework. It is unclear if that case arose by way of a pardons board decision or under licence of the commissioner general of prisons under section 43 of the Prisons Act 1995.
Lee’s case also does not appear to have been tested in court nor to have received any judicial endorsement. Lee’s case therefore does not constitute a legal precedent for granting house arrest.
Finally, from our research to date, there appear to be no standard operating procedures or guidelines in place for ‘house arrests’. A whole new ecosystem of rules and procedures would be required to operationalise house arrests.
There remain numerous legal uncertainties surrounding ‘house arrest’, Umno’s proposed RM50m fundraiser and the second pardon in relation to the first pardon (for Najib), which require further examination.
However, given the reported return of the earlier RM114m to Najib’s representative, it is unclear why Umno needs to raise funds from the public. Such a public fundraiser may also involve other legal considerations.
It is also unclear why it has been reported that Najib says most of his assets are frozen, when it appears that more than enough of his assets (that were previously seized) have already been returned to cover the RM50m fine, without the need for a public fundraiser.
Perhaps there may be other assets (which were not seized circa May 2018) which may have been frozen, but this is not clear nor have any details been made available publicly.
Greater transparency needed
The Malaysian Bar adopts the joint statement issued by civil society groups and individuals, including Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah, and calls upon the pardons board and the Prime Minister’s Department to:
- Declassify and publish the official minutes of the pardons board meeting(s) held regarding Najib’s first pardon and Najib’s second pardon decisions
- Fully disclose all conditions proposed to be attached to Najib’s house arrest, including monitoring protocols, enforcement authorities and the additional costs to taxpayers that a ‘house arrest’ would entail
This is yet another reason why the Malaysian Bar has consistently called for a meaningful freedom of information framework to guarantee public access to such information.
House arrest for other prisoners
Recent events may prompt other prisoners to petition for similar pardons, reprieves or respites.
Accordingly, clear and objective criteria, made known in advance, are crucial to avoid any perception of preferential treatment for Najib.
On what basis may any other convict or prisoner seek a similar pardon, reprieve or respite? Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution (quoted by Justice Nazlan in the SRC judgment), which provides the answer (and entrenches the constitutional right to equality before the law), reads: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”
While the law and ‘house arrest’ ecosystem are still in the process of being formulated, it is axiomatic that the pardons board(s) will now receive many more petitions for ‘house arrest’.
Next steps
The Malaysian Bar will, through its solicitors, challenge the decision and advice of the pardons board concerning the second pardon, while maintaining its appeal in relation to the pardons board’s decision and advice on Najib’s first pardon.
Anand Raj is the president of the Malaysian Bar.
The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
