KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 25): Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will know on Dec 22 whether he can serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest.
This follows a case management on Tuesday, during which the High Court allowed a request by Najib's counsels for the Jan 5 decision date to be brought forward. There was no objection from the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC).
Najib is currently serving a jail sentence meted out in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case in August 2022.
In the letter requesting the earlier decision date, Najib's lawyers cited delays of the addendum's intended enforcement, as well as the apex court's decision that the matter be dispensed expeditiously.
According to the letter sighted by The Edge, law firm Shafee & Co said that it was writing to court "upon the firm instructions" from its client for an earlier decision date, given the humanitarian implications of a further delay.
It added that the prolonged detention has caused the imprisoned 72-year-old to suffer "immense distress, trauma, and a significant deterioration to [his] emotional and overall well-being".
Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Syafiqah Sofian appeared for Najib during Tuesday's case management while senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan and federal counsel Safiyah Omar appeared for the AGC.
Najib's jail term had been slashed by the Federal Territories' Pardons Board in early 2024 to six years. The board also reduced his fine to RM50 million.
However, the then King issued an addendum (additional) order — independent of the Pardons Board — allowing Najib to serve the remainder of the updated sentence under house arrest.
What followed was a series of court hearings since last year eventually leading up to Monday's hearing where presiding judge Alice Loke heard arguments on the validity of the addendum order.
In gist, Najib's lawyers argue that the supplementary order was well within the Ruler's discretion and doesn't require the Board's consultation.
They argue that the order falls under "respite" per the law, granted not to absolve guilt but to ease how the punishment is carried out.
The AGC, however, counters that such an addendum is invalid and not enforceable because any Ruler is bound by the advice of the Pardons Board, including issues of mercy.
It argued that the constitution not only stipulates the procedural framework for pardons but also highlights many different safeguards to ensure that pardons are informed by legal counsel and deliberate.