OPINION | PART 2: NAJIB, 1MDB & The Billion-Ringgit ? — Who Else Must Answer?

PART 2: NAJIB, 1MDB AND THE BILLION-RINGGIT QUESTION — WHO ELSE MUST ANSWER?

Was Najib really corrupt? Where were the directors, bankers, auditors and regulators? And will Malaysia's next convicted VIP expect the same treatment?

By Dr. Amarjeet Singh @ AJ

In Part 1, I questioned whether Malaysia was losing its moral compass following the conditional pardon granted to former Prime Minister Najib Razak.

But there is a much bigger story that Malaysians must examine.

Some people continue to ask:

Was Najib really corrupt?

Was he made a scapegoat?

Why was he the one imprisoned when so many other individuals were involved in 1MDB?

Where were the directors?

Where were the auditors?

Where were the bankers?

And why did Goldman Sachs agree to pay billions of dollars in connection with the scandal?

These are legitimate questions. But they must be answered through evidence, court findings and documented financial transactions, not political loyalty.

The 1MDB scandal was not simply about one man. It exposed serious failures involving corporate governance, financial institutions, political power, regulatory oversight and the management of public funds.

And now, following Najib's latest conditional pardon, Malaysia faces another question:

If a former prime minister convicted of corruption can receive repeated reductions in punishment, what will happen when other politically connected individuals are convicted?

1. FIRST, WAS NAJIB REALLY CORRUPT?

We should begin with the most important distinction.

Najib has consistently maintained his innocence, and his supporters have argued that he was made a scapegoat.

However, his conviction in the SRC International case is not merely a political allegation.

It is an established judicial outcome.

Najib was convicted on seven charges involving abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering concerning RM42 million in SRC International funds.

His conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2021 and the Federal Court in August 2022.

The case went through years of judicial proceedings.

This was not simply a newspaper accusation or an opposition campaign.

In the words of the Court of Appeal, the movement of RM42 million into Najib's personal accounts was not in the national interest.

The court described it as a national embarrassment. Pasted markdown

In December 2025, Najib was also convicted in a separate 1MDB case involving four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering. He received a 15-year prison sentence and an RM11.4 billion fine. That conviction is under appeal and must be distinguished from the final SRC conviction.

The SRC conviction is final. The separate 1MDB conviction remains subject to appeal.

These are two different legal positions.

And we must understand both before discussing pardons.

2. THE RM210 MILLION FINE BECAME RM50 MILLION. NOW HOUSE ARREST?

Let us examine the sequence.

The RM160 million reduction in the fine occurred in 2024, not in September 2026. The latest decision introduces conditional house arrest and requires payment of the RM50 million fine.

The conditional pardon was announced on 18 September 2026 and allows house arrest until 23 August 2028, provided the conditions are met.

As of 20 September, Najib remained in Kajang Prison while working to fulfil the conditions.

The house-arrest concession does not erase his separate 1MDB conviction or determine the outcome of his appeal. Reuters

But the questions remain.

What is the legal framework governing this arrangement?

What are the conditions?

Who will supervise compliance?

Would the same arrangement be available to another prisoner?

What happens if his separate 1MDB conviction is upheld?

And who will explain the reasons behind this extraordinary decision?

G25 has also raised questions about the legal basis for home detention and the need to disclose the relevant legal advice and reasons for the pardon. Pasted markdown

Respect for constitutional institutions and public scrutiny of their decisions are not mutually exclusive.

3. WHERE WERE THE 1MDB BOARD OF DIRECTORS?

Now we enter the corporate governance aspect of this scandal.

1MDB was not a roadside stall.

It was a multibillion-ringgit government-owned investment company.

Such an organisation should have had corporate governance structures, financial controls, board oversight, auditors, management accountability and regulatory supervision.

Every substantial transaction should have involved documentation, approvals and verification.

So how did billions move through the system?

Where were the directors?

What did they know?

When did they know?

What questions did they ask?

Were there objections recorded in board minutes?

Did anyone refuse to approve questionable transactions?

Did anyone report suspected wrongdoing?

These questions are important because a director's responsibility does not disappear simply because instructions come from someone more powerful.

Why was Najib convicted while other individuals were not convicted alongside him?

It is important to recognise that not everyone connected to 1MDB was treated identically by investigators and prosecutors. Different individuals were investigated, charged, called as witnesses or prosecuted in separate proceedings.

Being a director does not automatically establish criminal guilt. Prosecutors must prove the elements of an offence against each individual.

Nevertheless, Malaysians are entitled to demand a comprehensive public accounting of what happened throughout the organisation.

Corporate governance cannot mean collecting directors' fees when business is good and claiming ignorance when billions disappear.

This is a lesson for every GLC, GLIC, statutory body and government-linked organisation in Malaysia.

4. GOLDMAN SACHS — WHY DID THE BANK PAY BILLIONS?

Here is where the 1MDB scandal becomes an international financial story.

Goldman Sachs helped 1MDB raise approximately US$6.5 billion through three bond transactions in 2012 and 2013.

According to the United States Department of Justice, Goldman Sachs received approximately US$606 million in fees and revenue.

That alone raises questions about the cost of financing and the scrutiny given to the transactions.

But there is more.

In October 2020, Goldman Sachs and its Malaysian subsidiary admitted involvement in a foreign bribery scheme connected to 1MDB.

The US Department of Justice reported that the bank agreed to pay more than US$2.9 billion as part of a coordinated resolution with authorities in multiple jurisdictions.

The Malaysian subsidiary pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate US anti-bribery law.

What did the bank admit?

The US authorities reported that Goldman Sachs employees and agents participated in a scheme involving more than US$1.6 billion in bribes to officials in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi.

The authorities also identified significant warning signs that were ignored or inadequately addressed.

Consider that for a moment.

One of the world's most prominent investment banks became involved in a bribery scheme connected to a Malaysian government investment fund.

This was not merely a Malaysian political controversy.

It was a major international financial crime.

What did Malaysia receive?

Goldman Sachs announced a separate 2020 agreement with Malaysia involving:

• US$2.5 billion in payment to the Malaysian government.
• A guarantee of at least US$1.4 billion in proceeds from recovered 1MDB-related assets.

The agreement also provided for the withdrawal of certain Malaysian criminal proceedings against Goldman Sachs entities and covered individuals, with specified exceptions.

The Malaysian settlement and the broader US$2.9 billion international resolution are different arrangements and should not simply be added together as though all the money went to Malaysia.

But the central question remains:

If an international investment bank admitted involvement in bribery connected to 1MDB, why should Malaysians accept the suggestion that the scandal was imaginary or merely political?

And another question:

Who were all the recipients of the bribes?

Were all of them identified?

Were all of them investigated?

Were all of them held accountable?

5. JHO LOW — WHERE IS THE MAN AT THE CENTRE OF THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS?

Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low, has been identified by US authorities as a central figure in the diversion of 1MDB funds.

The US Department of Justice indicted him in connection with money laundering and foreign bribery allegations.

His criminal charges are not equivalent to a conviction, and he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Nevertheless, his continued absence from court raises questions about the completeness of accountability for the scandal.

Where is Jho Low?

And who continues to hold assets connected to the scandal?

The recovery of money is important. But the public also needs to understand how the system was penetrated and how similar failures can be prevented.

6. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER BILLION-RINGGIT SCANDALS IN MALAYSIA?

This is where the discussion must go beyond Najib.

Malaysia has experienced repeated controversies involving public procurement, government-linked companies, statutory bodies and major infrastructure projects.

Not every controversy establishes corruption, and not every individual investigated is guilty.

But the rakyat are entitled to ask what happened, who was responsible and whether the same standards of accountability are applied.

THE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS — WHERE ARE THE WARSHIPS?

The Littoral Combat Ship programme became one of Malaysia's most widely scrutinised defence procurement controversies.

The project involved billions of ringgit and significant delays in delivering naval vessels.

National defence procurement is not simply a commercial transaction. Delays and failures can have consequences for national security and operational readiness.

THE HELICOPTER PROCUREMENT CONTROVERSIES

Malaysia has also faced questions over helicopter procurement, including the controversial 2018 leasing arrangement involving military helicopters that were not delivered as expected.

The public deserves a clear accounting of the contracts, payments, investigations and any recovery actions.

THE AIRCRAFT AND AVIATION CONTROVERSIES

Aircraft procurement, aviation assets and missing aircraft are not all the same kind of case.

For example, the disappearance of MH370 must not be described as corruption without evidence establishing such a connection.

However, where public money has been spent on aircraft procurement, maintenance, leasing or aviation-related contracts, Malaysians can legitimately demand transparency about expenditure and accountability.

The questions should always follow the evidence.

7. WILL EVERY CONVICTED VIP NOW EXPECT THE SAME TREATMENT?

This is the question at the centre of Part 2.

Imagine a former minister convicted of corruption.

Imagine a former chairman of a government-linked company convicted of criminal breach of trust.

Imagine a senior official convicted of receiving bribes.

Imagine a politically connected businessman convicted of laundering public funds.

What happens when they request similar consideration?

Will they point to Najib's conditional pardon?

These questions do not mean that any future pardon is automatic or legally guaranteed.

The Najib decision does not create an automatic legal entitlement for another convicted person to receive house arrest.

But it does raise important questions about consistency, transparency and public confidence.

If home detention is to become an available form of sentence administration or clemency, Malaysia needs clear rules governing eligibility, supervision, enforcement and equal treatment.

The public should not have to guess how such decisions are made.

8. MY QUESTIONS TO MALAYSIA'S LEADERSHIP

I believe the public deserves substantive answers to the following questions.

These are not questions intended to undermine constitutional institutions.

They are questions about transparency, the rule of law and the public's right to understand decisions with national consequences.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER MALAYSIA CAN FORGIVE.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER MALAYSIA CAN EXPLAIN HOW JUSTICE IS BEING SERVED.

— Dr. Amarjeet Singh @ AJ

Business Consultant | Strategist | Writer | Advocate for Leadership Accountability and Corporate Governance

Author's note: This article distinguishes final convictions from convictions under appeal, allegations, investigations and unresolved proceedings. Questions concerning defence procurement, Tabung Haji and FELDA are calls for accountability and should not be interpreted as allegations of criminal guilt against every individual associated with those institutions.

Amarjeet Singh Sran (amarjeetsinghsran5@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.