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 of Salient Events Leading to Najib’s Second Pardon
|
|
“[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…”.
|
| ◦17 June 202110 — RM114,164,393.44 in cash to Najib through his representative. Najib and UMNO had both claimed the cash;11 and |
| ◦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;12 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ◦to challenge the validity of the Pardons Board’s 2024 decision and advice; and |
| ◦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;” |
|
|
|
“[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.22 The HC’s judgment therefore remains undisturbed, ie the issue of “house arrest” (if any) presently falls under the purview of the Commissioner General of Prisons.
|
|
|
“[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 …”;
|
|
“This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure the amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.”
|
“House Arrest” and the United Malays National Organization (“UMNO”)’s RM50 Million Fundraiser
Alice Loke J 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 exists27 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.28
The reference to Kenneth Lee Fook Mun’s (“Kenneth”) previous purported house arrest by way of a pardon29 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. Kenneth’s case also does not appear to have been tested in court nor to have received any judicial endorsement. Kenneth’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 uncertainties30 surrounding “house arrest”, UMNO’s proposed RM50 million fundraiser and the Second Pardon in relation to the First Pardon, which require further examination. However, given the reported return of the earlier RM114,164,393.44 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 RM50 million fine, without the need for a public fundraiser.31 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 Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah,32 and calls upon the Pardons Board and the Prime Minister’s Department to:
| (1) declassify and publish the official minutes of the Pardons Board meeting(s) held regarding Najib’s First Pardon and Najib’s Second Pardon decisions; and |
| (2) 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 called33 for a meaningful freedom of information (“FOI”) 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 perceptions 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 Nazlan J in the SRC judgment), which provides the answer (and entrenches the constitutional right to equality before the law), reads as follows:
“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”.
The Malaysian Bar’s 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 the First Pardon.34
Anand Raj
President
Malaysian Bar
25 September 2026
1 “Value of items seized from Najib-linked properties totals RM1.1b”, The Edge Malaysia, 27 June 2018.
2 Pendakwa Raya v OBYU Holding Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 MLJ 900.
3 “Malaysia 1MDB: Ex-PM Najib arrested by anti-corruption officials”, BBC, 3 July 2018.
4 Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2020] 11 MLJ 808.
5 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor [2022] 1 MLJ 137.
6 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals (No 1) [2022] 5 MLJ 85.
7 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2023] 3 MLJ 40.
8 OBYU Holding, supra note 2.
9 Ibid.
10 “Prosecutor: RM114m-worth of seized assets in 1MDB forfeiture case returned to Umno, Najib”, Malay Mail, 5 August 2021.
11 OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [11], [16], [17].
12 OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [2], [18] to [20].
13 OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [20], [40], [78] to [79].
14 “Press Release: Has Mercy Robbed Justice from the Nation?”, Malaysian Bar website, 6 February 2024.
15 “Bar files to quash Pardons Board reduction of Najib’s sentence”, Malaysiakini, 30 April 2024.
16 “Home Ministry: House arrest Bill set for tabling later this year, stakeholders currently consulted to draft law”, Malay Mail, 18 February 2025.
17 “Budget 2025 Speech”, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, 18 October 2024.
18 Badan Peguam Malaysia v Lembaga Pengampunan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya & Anor [2025] 10 MLJ 813.
19 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2025] 4 MLJ 440.
20 The Attorney General of Malaysia v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak and Another Appeal [2025] MLJU 2456.
21 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2025] MLJU 4605.
22 “Najib withdraws appeal on house arrest, no reasons given”, The Malaysian Reserve, 27 April 2026; “Najib drops appeal over High Court’s dismissal of house arrest bid”, Free Malaysia Today, 27 April 2026.
23 Public Prosecutor v Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2026] MLJU 2414.
24 “Najib faces continued legal battles despite house arrest”, New Straits Times, 20 September 2026.
25 “Prisons amendment bill sent back to select committees for further scrutiny”, New Straits Times, 25 June 2026.
26 “Najib allowed house arrest if he pays RM50mil fine”, Free Malaysia Today, 18 September 2026; Siaran Media: Mesyuarat Lembaga Pengampunan Bagi Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya Kali Ke-64 Pada 18 September 2026, Bahagian Hal Ehwal Undang-Undang, JPM Facebook page, 18 September 2026.
27 “No action until official pardons board notification received on Najib, clarifies Saifuddin”, The Star, 19 September 2026.
28 “Saifuddin Nasution: Proposed House Arrest Act focuses on remand detainees and prison overcrowding”, Malay Mail, 20 September 2026.
29 “Home Ministry can’t stall Najib’s house arrest if bid is successful, says his lawyer Shafee”, The Edge, 18 December 2025; “House arrest and royal pardons in Malaysia: are there precedents?”, Scoop, 21 September 2026.
30 “Najib: House Arrest and a Lot of Questions”, BFM 89.9 Morning Brief Podcast, 21 September 2026.
31 “Frozen assets may hinder RM50m payment for Najib’s house arrest, his lawyers say”, Malay Mail, 20 September 2026.
32 “Release minutes: Ex-Bersih leaders Ambiga, Maria join push to lift veil on house arrest”, Malaysiakini, 22 September 2026.
33 “Press Release: Malaysian Freedom of Information Act is Long Overdue”, Malaysian Bar website, 3 July 2026; “Press Release: The Freedom of Information Bill is Regressive, Misdirected and in Dire Need of Rectification”, Malaysian Bar website, 21 July 2026.
34 “Najib: House Arrest and a Lot of Questions”, BFM 89.9 Morning Brief Podcast, 21 September 2026.