<figure id="attachment_3005212" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-3005212" style="width: 1600px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-3005212" src="https://media.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/f51a2bc3-najib-razak-bernama-100325-1.webp" alt="najib razak" width="1600" height="1000" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-3005212" class="wp-caption-text">Former prime minister Najib Razak, who was convicted of misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International Sdn Bhd funds, has been serving his sentence at Kajang prison since Aug 23, 2022. (Bernama pic)</figcaption></figure>
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has set Jan 5 to deliver its decision on whether former prime minister Najib Razak can serve the remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
Justice Loke Yee Ching set the date after hearing submissions from both parties today, stating that the decision will be delivered at 8am.
The proceedings relate to a royal addendum allegedly decreed by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.
Najib was convicted of misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International Sdn Bhd funds and has been serving his sentence at Kajang prison since Aug 23, 2022.
The Federal Territories Pardons Board later halved his prison term from 12 years to six and reduced his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.
A judicial review was filed last year seeking to compel the government to execute the addendum, or supplementary decree, to place him under house arrest.
Najib claimed that the supplementary decree was not announced by the pardons board, and that the government was in contempt for not executing it.
Earlier, Najib&#8217;s lead counsel, Shafee Abdullah, argued that the king was not bound to follow the pardons board’s advice and may issue his own decree on a pardon petition.
He contended that a long-standing misconception among lawyers arose from a misreading of the phrase “preside over” in Article 42(8) of the Federal Constitution.
The provision states that the pardons board shall meet in the presence of the ruler, who shall preside over it.
Shafee told the court the term &#8220;preside over&#8221; had been translated into Malay as “mempengerusikan”, which he maintained was inaccurate.
“It is wrong to say the Yang di-Pertuan Agong &#8216;mempengerusikan’. The YDPA is not part of the pardons board,” he said.
He contended that the term “preside over” means to “float over” the board and to consider its recommendations before making a decision.
He said a more accurate Malay term would be “bersidang”, comparing it to how a judge presides over a hearing rather than chairs it.
Failing to understand this leads to the misinterpretation that the king must come to a decision on a pardon petition together with the board, he said.
Shafee said the king is entitled to form an independent view despite what the board argues or recommends.
“Where justice ends, mercy begins. Mercy can take into consideration matters beyond justice and what is admissible in court,” he said.
Contents of addendum order not discussed
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan told the court earlier  the minutes of the 61st pardons board meeting showed only one decision was made, which involved the king halving Najib&#8217;s jail term.
He said the contents of the addendum order were never discussed at that meeting.
“Based on Article 42(1), read with Article 42(8), any decision of the king regarding a pardon application in the federal territory must be determined by the king through the pardons board at a meeting presided over by him,” he said.
He contended that if a house arrest was intended, the matter ought to have been deliberated and resolved at a meeting attended by the king.
“However, the addendum order was not decided upon during the 61st pardons board meeting, and its issuance outside the required procedural framework calls into question its validity under the Federal Constitution,” he said.
Najib filed leave for judicial review last April, relying on affidavits filed by Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang menteri besar Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, based on a copy of the addendum they sighted on Tengku Zafrul Aziz’s mobile phone.
On July 2 last year, High Court judge Amarjeet Singh refused Najib leave to adduce additional evidence, ruling that the supporting affidavits were hearsay.
Najib appealed to the Court of Appeal, and shortly before the hearing, his son Nizar filed an affidavit supporting his father’s bid to adduce the addendum as fresh evidence.
On Jan 6 this year, the appeals court, by a 2-1 majority, allowed the addendum to be entered into evidence and granted the former prime minister leave to pursue judicial review proceedings.
On Aug 13, the Federal Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s majority ruling.
Najib is currently serving his six-year jail term in prison.

MatchPoint Times

Court sets Jan 5 for verdict on Najib’s house arrest bid

The ex-prime minister had filed for a judicial review last year seeking to compel the government to execute a royal addendum on his SRC International jail term.

Shafie pledges ‘structural’ reforms to curb graft among Sabah’s reps

DUN Sarawak lulus RUU tambah anggota MMKN