We, the members of G25, are once again deeply shocked and dismayed by the decision of the Pardons Board to grant a further conditional pardon to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, allowing him to serve the remainder of his custodial sentence under house arrest. This follows the Pardons Board’s decision in 2024 to halve his 12-year prison sentence to six years and reduce his RM210 million fine to RM50 million, an astounding 76% reduction.
Back in 2024, we called for the Pardons Board to provide the public with written reasons for its decision to reduce DS Najib’s sentence, or at the very least the written opinion of the Attorney General under Article 42(9) of the Federal Constitution. Given the serious and egregious nature of the offences involving RM42 million in SRC International funds, the substantial reduction of DS Najib’s sentence and fine, despite his several other criminal cases pending at the time, amounted to what we described as a travesty of the justice system. Even without DS Najib’s subsequent 1MDB conviction involving RM2.3 billion, in which he was convicted in December 2025 on 21 counts of money laundering and four counts of abuse of power, the gravity of the SRC offences alone cannot be understated.
DS Najib was convicted on seven charges involving abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering in relation to RM42 million in SRC International funds. This was not a minor offence, nor was it a case in which the facts remained uncertain after the trial process. The SRC case took more than four years to reach its final conclusion. It was not a decision made in haste. From the first charges in July 2018, through the High Court trial and judgment in July 2020, the Court of Appeal decision in December 2021, and finally the Federal Court’s dismissal of the appeal in August 2022, DS Najib was afforded the full and meticulous judicial process of our courts, and exhausted every legal avenue of appeal available to him.
In upholding his conviction, the Court of Appeal also made clear the seriousness with which it viewed the SRC case. The presiding judge, Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, said that the flow of the RM42 million into DS Najib’s personal accounts could not be regarded as being in the national interest, stating, “There is no national interest here, just a national embarrassment.” Those were not the words of political opponents or commentators. They were the words from our judiciary, the words of the Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision upholding his conviction. They should not be forgotten when considering the extraordinary leniency that has since been extended to DS Najib.
Two years after DS Najib’s imprisonment he received his first partial pardon with a reduced jail term and fine. Yet, another two years later, it appears that the concerns raised over his initial partial pardon have fallen on deaf ears, with clemency now extended in the form of a house arrest order to a former Prime Minister whose guilt was unequivocally established by the highest court in the land. For us in G25, this house arrest order is the unkindest cut of all, and we believe the vast majority of the rakyat feel the same. This does nothing to strengthen public confidence in our criminal justice system. It is a travesty of justice. It is difficult for the public to reconcile this repeated reduction in punishment with the government’s stated commitment to strengthening the rule of law and combating corruption. The government must take this loss of public trust seriously. A conviction reached after the judicial process has been exhausted must carry meaning. While the constitutional power of clemency provides an important safeguard, its exercise should not leave the public with the impression that the consequences of a final conviction can be repeatedly and substantially reduced without transparent reasons being given.
With regards to the law, Article 42(9) of the Federal Constitution provides that the Pardons Board shall consider the written opinion of the Attorney General. In addition, Article 40(1A) states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the Pardons Board. In the present case, the public should be provided with the written opinion of the AG and the representation of the Minister for the Federal Territories Hannah Yeoh. It should be made clear whether the decision to grant house arrest was consistent with the written advice of the AG and the representation made by the minister. If so, the public should be told. If not, the public is equally entitled to know.
In addition, the recent case of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri [2026] 2 MLRH 387, where Justice Alice Loke held that a house arrest order is not capable of execution, there being no legal provision for such a mechanism, is highly relevant. In her judgement, Justice Alice Loke said (p.408):
“[68] In any event, 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.”
This is not a matter of legal theory. It is a direct judicial finding that, at the time of judgment, Malaysian law did not (and still does not) provide a mechanism for house arrest. In light of this, we are concerned about what legal advice was given to the Pardons Board. An explanation is needed to clearly explain what has changed in the law, or what legal authority now exists, to form the basis of the Pardons Board’s decision to order the house arrest.
The decision also raises the question of equal treatment under the law. The law is no respecter of persons. Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law. The rule of law requires that justice be administered fairly and consistently, regardless of a person's position, wealth or former office. If house arrest is to become part of Malaysia’s criminal justice system, it should be governed by clear and generally applicable laws and criteria, rather than appearing to have been created, in effect, for the benefit of one particular individual. Legal experts have noted that this appears to be an unprecedented use of house arrest as a form of royal clemency in Malaysia. The public is entitled to ask a simple question: would the same treatment be available to an ordinary prisoner convicted of comparable offences? If the answer is no, the government must explain what principle of equal justice justifies the distinction.
If the argument for additional clemency through house arrest is based on the high public office a person once held, as public perception may assume in this case, logic would suggest that the opposite is more justified. There is a strong basis for the view that a person who abuses the powers and responsibilities entrusted to him by virtue of a high public office should, rather than receive more lenient treatment, be held to an even higher standard of accountability and, where appropriate, face a more severe punishment. The precedent set to allow greater leniency for offences committed by those holding higher offices is deeply troubling. This is because the consequences of abuse in those positions are not limited to the individual and those affected alone, but extend to the integrity of public institutions, the stability of the nation and the peace of its people. For this reason, public office should never become a shield against the full consequences of wrongdoing. If anything, the greater the power entrusted to a person, the greater the obligation to account for its abuse.
We, the members of G25, reiterate our call for full transparency regarding the reasons and constitutional basis for this latest decision by the Pardons Board, to avoid public speculation and to ensure clarity in our laws and confidence in the justice system. The public should not be left to piece together the constitutional and legal basis of an extraordinary decision from media reports, statements and speculation.
Given the seriousness of this matter and the damage it has done to Malaysia’s domestic and international standing, G25 also calls upon the Pardons Board to urgently revisit this decision at its earliest possible meeting, with a view of rescinding the further clemency granted to DS Najib.
Our current government has repeatedly pledged to strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption and restore confidence in our public institutions. However, the strength of the government’s commitment to reform is ultimately measured not only by its words and policies, but by what it does when those principles are tested. Recent comments from our prime minister on the house arrest order, as reported in the Malay Mail Online on Sept 18, quoted him saying, “…ultimately, the Constitution provides for the powers of His Majesty the King, and I hope we can accept the decision…” With respect, is this all our prime minister has to say? Is our Prime Minister so removed from the rakyat that he could not fathom the deep feeling of hurt, humiliation and cruel injustice felt by the vast majority of the citizens? Respect for the constitutional role of the King does not mean that the government, or the public, should be expected to remain silent on questions of legality, transparency and justice to the citizens. Telling the public to simply “accept the decision” is not an adequate answer to legitimate questions about a decision of such profound importance to the rule of law. It is akin to adding insult to injury. It risks conveying the very message that the government should be working to dispel, that accountability applies differently depending on who is involved.
The government cannot on the one hand tell Malaysians that corruption and abuse of power must never be taken lightly, while on the other asking them to simply accept an extraordinary reduction in the consequences faced by a former prime minister convicted of serious corruption-related offences that robbed our country and its rakyat of public funds meant for their benefit. These are not merely matters of political rhetoric. They go to the credibility of our institutions and to whether Malaysians can have confidence that the law applies without fear or favour.
If the Madani government is serious about restoring confidence in our public institutions then the solution towards that goal in this instance is extremely simple. This is precisely the moment when that commitment must be demonstrated, not by asking Malaysians to accept difficult questions without answers, but by providing those answers.
How the government responds to all public calls for transparency in this matter will also speak volumes about what it thinks of us Malaysians, whether it considers us an intelligent and mature people deserving of an explanation, or a population that can simply be told to accept decisions and follow blindly without reason. Failure to respond to these calls would reveal exactly how little regard the government has for us Malaysian people, and may leave the public to assume that there are no justifiable reasons for the decision when surely there must be. Malaysia is a constitutional democracy, and our citizens deserve to be treated as informed and responsible participants in that democracy. There should not be any insult to the intelligence of the citizens. We deserve to be treated with dignity.
The Constitution must be respected, and so must our people. We therefore urge the government to respond to these legitimate concerns to prove that the decisions made have a solid basis and to demonstrate whether it does or does not regard Malaysians as citizens deserving of transparency, explanation and respect.
G25 comprises a group of former civil servants advocating for moderation and good governance.