NOVEMBER 9 — On September 25, former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah reportedly said that Najib could leave Kajang Prison as early as October to serve the remainder of his SRC International sentence under house arrest if the High Court granted a stay of his 15-year 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) sentence.
It was a big ‘if’.
That is because when asked how soon Najib could return home to serve his sentence under house arrest if all the required conditions were met, Shafee said it would depend on whether the necessary preparations had been completed.
“If we are ready, say on October 14 we obtain the stay of sentence and then, God willing, the RM50 million is paid, there is a strong possibility that he could be released on the same day,” he told reporters.
October 14 was the date fixed by the High Court to hear Najib’s application to stay the execution of his 15-year prison sentence in the 1MDB case pending his appeal.
Najib had sought the stay of the 1MDB sentence following the conditional pardon granted to him.
Shafee said Najib’s legal team had previously not sought a stay when Najib was convicted in the 1MDB case because he was already serving his sentence for the SRC International case.
“However, the conditional pardon has changed the situation because the 1MDB sentence could affect Najib’s efforts to serve his SRC International sentence under house arrest,” he said.
On October 14, the High Court dismissed Najib’s application to stay the execution of his 15-year prison sentence and RM11.38 billion fine in the 1MDB case pending his appeal.
The big ‘if’ did not materialize. Najib was not granted a stay of his 15-year 1MDB sentence.
Accordingly the AGC has reason to say that Najib’s house arrest “needed to be examined in light of the High Court’s rejection on October 14, 2026 of [his] application for a stay of execution of his sentence in the 1MDB case”.
The matter is, if not “legally complex”, rightly unprecedented.
I would humbly agree that a “clear and definitive legal clarification was necessary before any further implementation action could be taken”.
The Attorney General has a variety of different responsibilities. Under the Constitution, he is not only the government’s chief legal adviser; he is the chief legal adviser to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
It is the Attorney General’s duty under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong “upon such legal matters” and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.
The execution of Najib’s house arrest is such a legal matter.
Lord Goldsmith, who served as the Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland from June 8, 2001, to June 27, 2007, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, once considered that “upholding the Rule of Law” was one of his key functions as Attorney General. He identified this role as “most obviously my role as the Government’s chief legal adviser, although it goes wider”. Upholding the rule of law is about compliance with the law.
So, let’s give space to Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as he seeks an audience with His Majesty to discuss Najib’s house arrest in his SRC International case.
Let the Attorney General advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong upon such a legal matter.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
