By M.Krishnamoorthy
A former Associate Professor, author, media coach, and journalist
Has Parliament made any law on pardons, or especially house arrest in #MalaysiaKita2026?
Categorically, “No”, said G.K. Ganesan.
So where does the Pardons Board’s power to order house arrest come from?
“In my opinion, there is no such power,” said G.K. Ganesan, a senior advocate, international arbitrator, constitutionalist and author.
The Pardons Board cannot exercise a power it does not have, Ganesan added.
The Pardons Board's power comes from two sources.
First, Article 42 of the Federal Constitution. Second, from any Act of Parliament.
Article 42 states that:
‘[The King] has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites [for] all offences… committed in the Federal Territories,…’ etc.
Next, how are the Pardon Board’s powers to be exercised?
Ganesan explained: “To understand this, you must look to Articles 42(4)(a) and 40(3). Here is a simple explanation.
“First, the King’s powers come from only one source: the Federal Constitution. Under the Constitution, the King has two types of powers. The first are his personal powers - these have to do with, e.g. who shall be his successor in the royal house, etc. This has nothing to do with the powers to pardon.”
“The second set - the King’s powers after consultation or on recommendation. This happens where His Majesty exercises his powers ‘after consulting with’ or ‘on the recommendation of’ another body,” said Ganesan.
To grant a pardon, he added, the King must act on the Pardons Board's advice.
“The Constitution states that if the King must consult a body of persons, His Majesty must act in accordance with that recommendation. Third, Article 42(4)(a) stipulates how the King’s powers must be exercised. Art. 40(3) states that Parliament ‘may’ make laws on how the King exercises his powers of pardon.”
“[The] powers… in this Article… are, [if] they are exercisable by the [King], … functions [for] which [Parliament] may [make law] under Article 40(3).’
Ganesan cited an example. Question-1: Suppose the Board told the King, “We recommend an order of House Arrest”. Is that recommendation valid? How can it be? The Board has no such power. Neither does His Majesty the King. With respect, the Board or His Majesty cannot exercise a non-existent power. It is a fatal error of jurisdiction.”
In another question, Ganesan posed: “Suppose the Board did make such a recommendation. Who has the power to instruct the Pardons Board to make such a recommendation? Not the King. His Majesty cannot be blamed for that.”
Moving on to the subject of security legislation.
QUESTION: Could an existing security law simply be borrowed?
GANESAN: No. Not POCA, not POTA, not SOSMA.4 Each of these watches a person who has not yet been punished — a suspected terrorist, a habitual criminal, an accused person awaiting trial.
Najib has already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. Reaching for a preventive-detention statute to manage a man serving a sentence would be a category error — rather like sending the fire brigade to a house that has already finished burning down.
QUESTION: So what can the law actually stand on?
GANESAN: Very little that was built for the purpose.
Section 43 of the Prisons Act 1995, read with regulation 111 of the Prisons Regulations 2000, lets the Commissioner-General release a prisoner “on licence,” with conditions attached.
This is the very provision the High Court examined in December 2025, and found the Addendum too rigid to satisfy.
A licence issued this time, with conditions genuinely open to revision, sits rather more comfortably within the section.
But it is not, in truth, where the real power comes from.
The Group G25, in its statement, called for the Pardons Board to rescind its decision on Najib's partial pardon and noted, “In her judgment, Justice Alice Loke said (on page 408): 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 the light of this, we are concerned about what legal advice was given to the pardons board. We need an explanation of what has changed in the law, or what legal authority now exists, to form the basis of the board’s decision to order house arrest.”
Freelance Writer M. Krishnamoorthy (https://helloimkrishna.com/) is a media coach, former Associate Professor, and undercover journalist. He has freelanced with Bernama, NST, The Star, and Malaysiakini. He also freelances as a fixer/coordinator for CNN, BBC, German and Australian Television networks, and The New York Times. As an undercover journalist, he has highlighted society's concerns.
M. Krishnamoorthy (krishnamuthaly@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
