Najib Razak’s Judicial Review Dismissed in Kuala Lumpur High Court
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 22 — The High Court has dismissed former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak House Arrest. The ruling means Najib will continue serving his sentence at Kajang Prison as previously decreed. The judicial review was heard in the context of Malaysia’s legal framework governing royal pardons and prison terms, with key respondents including the Home Minister, the Prisons Department director-general, and the Federal Territories Pardons Board for Kuala Lumpur, Labuan, and Putrajaya. The case has drawn significant attention due to its implications on constitutional law and the administration of justice in Malaysia.
Legal Proceedings and Courtroom Developments Leading to the Decision
The judicial review application was filed by Najib on April 1, 2024, aiming to verify whether a purported addendum to a royal pardon issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Abdullah permitted him to complete the balance of his sentence under house arrest. The addendum’s existence was attested to by Najib’s son, Datuk Mohd Nizar Najib, through an affidavit submitted on Dec 5, 2024. However, Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar challenged its authenticity and legal validity during proceedings.
Najib has been serving his sentence since August 23, 2022, following his conviction for misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd, with the prison term and fine upheld by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. After originally being sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and fined RM210 million, a royal pardon application submitted on Sept 2, 2022, resulted in the Pardons Board halving the jail term to six years and reducing the fine to RM50 million on Feb 2, 2024. Non-payment of the fine would incur an additional one-year jail term.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Datuk Amarjeet Singh, delivered the dismissal after reviewing submissions from Najib’s legal team led by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, and the senior federal counsel representing the government respondents. This legal process followed a complex series of appeals and leave grants: the Kuala Lumpur High Court initially rejected Najib’s leave application on July 3, 2024; however, the Court of Appeal reversed that in a 2–1 majority decision on Jan 6, 2025, granting judicial review leave. The Federal Court later granted the Attorney General leave to appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on Aug 13, 2025, thereby upholding the Court of Appeal’s ruling and remitting the case back to the High Court for hearing.
Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions and Official Court Findings
In her ruling, Justice Amarjeet Singh cited Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, emphasising that any final meeting regarding a royal pardon must be convened in the presence of and chaired by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The judge concluded that this is not a procedural formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Accordingly, the 61st Pardons Board meeting on Jan 29, 2024, overlapped with these conditions and was chaired by Sultan Abdullah. The meeting resolved solely on reducing Najib’s sentence without addressing any house arrest provision.
Following the court adjournment, Najib was observed conferring with his lead counsel and was accompanied by close family members including his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, his brother Datuk Seri Nazir Najib, and his children. The legal team confirmed that they intend to file an appeal against the High Court’s decision. The authorities have maintained adherence to procedural correctness throughout the case, and have refrained from commenting beyond official statements.
Public and Social Media Responses Reflect Interest in Legal and Institutional Processes
The ruling sparked widespread discussion on social media platforms and among legal commentators in Malaysia. Observers pointed to the case’s significance in clarifying constitutional provisions related to royal pardons and the limits of executive discretion. It also highlighted the role of various governmental agencies, including the Federal Territories Pardons Board and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the administration of justice.
Legal experts demonstrated cautious analysis, focusing on procedural compliance and constitutional mandates. Industry observers note the case contributes to broader discourse on the rule of law in Malaysia, especially pertaining to high-profile political figures and judicial independence. Overall, public sentiment remains divided, though discussions have centred on the integrity of the pardon process and the application of constitutional articles governing such matters.
Implications for Correctional Administration and Legal Precedents in Malaysia
In the short term, the dismissal of the judicial review means Najib will continue his incarceration at Kajang Prison, confirming the current enforcement of his sentence without alteration. This maintains operational stability within the prison system and avoids complications related to house arrest protocols. Meanwhile, legal and governmental agencies remain prepared for further submissions pending any new appeals.
Long-term implications include clarification of procedures related to royal pardons and possible revisions to administrative practices within the Pardons Board and the Prime Minister’s Department. The emphasis on adhering to constitutional requirements may affect future pardon requests and review processes, reinforcing the framework for both penal administration and institutional oversight in Malaysia. Additionally, legal precedents set by this and related court rulings are likely to influence how former political leaders’ sentences and pardons are managed moving forward.
