On 2 February 2024, the former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak (“Najib”), successfully obtained a reduction of his punishment.[1] Najib’s prison sentence was reduced from 12 years to 6 years while his fine was reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million.
This decision has upset Malaysians across the board, although for different reasons. Some say that Najib deserves no mercy and feel betrayed by promises to combat corruption. Others say that the reduction is not enough and call for Najib’s immediate release.
Perhaps we need to ask, “Why was Najib’s punishment reduced?”. To unravel that question, we need to first understand how we got to this stage.
In 2020, Najib was found guilty of 7 offences relating to abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering. Najib’s corruption-related activities were highly publicized and have been termed as “one of the world’s greatest financial scandals”.[2]
After being convicted, Najib requested a pardon, as disclosed by his lawyers.
Following his request, Najib received a reduction of his punishment but did not receive a full pardon for his crimes. This means that Najib is still a convicted criminal (for now).
This situation is different from the full pardon granted to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, whose criminal conviction was effectively erased.
The power to grant a pardon is the prerogative of the Ruler of the State where the offence was committed or tried. For offences committed in the Federal Territories (as is the case for Najib), this power is vested with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (“YDPA)”.[3]
The underlying principle of this power is mercy. Hence, the considerations would naturally be different from the considerations of the Court, which are guided primarily by justice and fairness. Unlike justice and fairness, mercy is not the subject of legal rights. Rather, mercy begins where legal rights end.[4] Because of this, the Courts do not play a role to review the granting of a pardon.[5] If the law allowed such reviews, every convict’s case would be endlessly re-examined.[6]
Back to Najib, what caused the YDPA to extend his mercy?
The pardons process is a highly confidential affair. Further, given that the power to pardon is a prerogative power of the YDPA, the Pardons Board or the YDPA is not legally compelled to provide a justification for the YDPA’s decision.
However, there is also nothing that prevents an explanation being provided by the Pardons Board. Given Najib’s previous role as the Prime Minister and the magnitude of the public crime he committed against the Malaysian public while holding office, it is only normal that social media is abuzz with questions / comments from well-meaning, law-abiding Malaysians, all wondering why the man responsible for a such damaging corruption involving huge public funds, was granted mercy by the YDPA?
Did prison turn Najib into a remorseful man? That is unlikely, given that Najib has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Did Najib’s service to the country as Prime Minister factor in the Pardons Board’s advice to the YDPA? It is hard to see how this would be so, as he was sent to prison for crimes committed while he was serving as Prime Minister.
Was Najib’s other on-going criminal cases taken into account by the Pardons Board when it advised the YDPA?
Was Najib’s age (70 years) a factor for the mercy being recommended?
Providing reasons for a decision involving high profile and public interest cases is especially important given the prevailing perception (substantiated or otherwise) that politicians seem to be regularly let off the hook. Here are a few examples:
- In 2018, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (current Prime Minister) was granted a full pardon.
- In 2020, Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor (former Federal Territories Minister) was discharged of a corruption-related charge.
- In 2020, Tan Sri Musa Aman (former Chief Minister of Sabah) was discharged of 46 corruption-related charges.
- In 2023, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (current Deputy Prime Minister) was discharged of 47 corruption-related charges.
If Najib’s reduction of punishment is not explained, the speculation that naturally arises will only serve to validate such perceptions.
While some speculate on the reasons for Najib’s reduction of punishment, others are looking to the future and wondering if Najib can apply for a further pardon (perhaps a full pardon). Well, it appears there is nothing in the law to prevent that. If granted by the new YDPA, this could mean that Najib’s crimes are completely forgiven.
Regardless, let’s all stay calm and respect the decision of the YDPA – even if no explanation is forthcoming from the Pardons Board and the burning question remains an unexplained mystery of our public history.
Disclaimer: The author and publisher of this article express utmost respect for the decision of the YDPA in granting the sentence reduction to Najib. This article does not seek to challenge the legality or wisdom of the decision, nor does it intend to incite public hatred or insults towards the royal institution. It is not intended to undermine the absolute power of the YDPA in fulfilling His Royal Highness’ constitutional duties as outlined in Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.
[1] Media Statement, Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, 2 February 2024
[2] Chen, Heather; Ponniah, Kevin; Mei Lin, Mayuri (9 August 2019). “1MDB: The playboys, PMs and partygoers around a global financial scandal. It is one of the world’s greatest financial scandals”. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46341603 Retrieved 5 February 2024.
[3] Art. 42(1), Federal Constitution
[4] de Freitas v Benny [1976] AC 239
[5] Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor [1988] 1 MLJ 64; Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Mohd Khairul Azam bin Abdul Aziz and another appeal [2023] 2 MLJ 545
[6] Superintendent of Pudu Prisons & Ors v Sim Kie Chon [1986] 1 MLJ 494
About the Author
Sahain is a Legal Associate of XK Law. He graduated with Honours from the National University of Malaysia. Sahain believes that the legal fraternity plays an integral part in the operation of the rule of law in Malaysia and is keen to utilise his legal education towards the betterment of society and the country.
