A Malaysian court just shut down the former prime minister's attempt to finish his prison term at home. Najib Razak will stay in Kajang Prison after the High Court in Kuala Lumpur rejected his request. The ruling centered on a special order for house arrest allegedly issued by the former king. Judge Alice Loke Yee Ching declared that order invalid, stating the king's power to grant clemency must be used judiciously and for public benefit, not unilaterally.
The judge focused on constitutional procedure. The king holds the power to pardon or reduce sentences under Article 42, but must consult a pardons board. That board had already cut Najib's original twelve-year sentence for the 1MDB corruption scandal down to six years, also slashing his massive fine. However, the judge found the board never discussed or advised on house arrest. The separate order for confinement at home was therefore issued outside the proper legal process. The court noted that such a novel form of clemency especially required the board's deliberation.
Najib had argued the king had standalone authority to grant a "respite" like house arrest without the board's input. The court disagreed. This judicial review marks a significant moment, as courts have traditionally been hesitant to scrutinize royal prerogatives. Najib's legal team failed to produce the original house arrest order, and the case was sent back to the High Court after an appeal. His lawyer immediately stated they would appeal this latest dismissal. The decision reinforces that royal clemency, while a powerful prerogative, is not absolute and must operate within constitutional bounds.
The judge focused on constitutional procedure. The king holds the power to pardon or reduce sentences under Article 42, but must consult a pardons board. That board had already cut Najib's original twelve-year sentence for the 1MDB corruption scandal down to six years, also slashing his massive fine. However, the judge found the board never discussed or advised on house arrest. The separate order for confinement at home was therefore issued outside the proper legal process. The court noted that such a novel form of clemency especially required the board's deliberation.
Najib had argued the king had standalone authority to grant a "respite" like house arrest without the board's input. The court disagreed. This judicial review marks a significant moment, as courts have traditionally been hesitant to scrutinize royal prerogatives. Najib's legal team failed to produce the original house arrest order, and the case was sent back to the High Court after an appeal. His lawyer immediately stated they would appeal this latest dismissal. The decision reinforces that royal clemency, while a powerful prerogative, is not absolute and must operate within constitutional bounds.
