The laughable threat of a gag order on the Royal Addendum, which the judge has directed the government to formally apply for by Monday, 20 January, has sparked widespread debate. Memes and sarcastic posts have flooded social media, with some viewing it as a clarification of the royal prerogative, while others see it as a potential threat to judicial independence.
KUALA LUMPUR – The government’s application to the High Court for an injunction to prevent public discussion on the Royal Addendum for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s house arrest has sparked concerns about freedom of speech. Legal experts and politicians question whether the Madani government truly practices transparency and democracy.
Meanwhile, some believe that issues arising from the Royal Addendum have been taken out of context and, as the case is still in court, it may be considered subjudice. However, it should be noted that it is no longer considered subjudice as the issue has been debated far and wide in mainstream and social media, in podcasts, and townhall sessions, not to mention in coffee shops.
The Addendum Controversy
President of Makkal Sakti Parti Malaysia, Datuk Seri R.S. Thanenthiran, in a no-holds barred press conference last Monday voiced his concerns regarding the recent addendum issue, which has caused significant confusion and unrest among the public and within political circles. The controversy escalated following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s announcement, which confirmed the existence of the addendum and its submission to the Attorney General’s Office.
“The revelation has raised questions about why the Prime Minister took nearly a year to disclose the matter. The confirmation came after a letter from the Pahang Palace, presented by Datuk Mohd Nizar Najib, son of the former Premier, brought the Addendum to light.
“Despite acknowledgments from political figures such as Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy, the delay in clarification from the Madani government has complicated the situation further,” he said.
Thanenthiran added that Najib’s case has become a national topic of concern, involving judicial fairness and government integrity, and has even been debated in Parliament. Thus, the Royal Addendum should be subject to public scrutiny in the open, rather than attempting to quash public discussion through a gag order.
The Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (Muda) has also criticised the government for seeking a gag order from the court.
Freedom Of Speech Curbed
The opposition party said in a statement that Putrajaya should not curb free speech on the matter and questioned if there were personal interests behind this move.
Muda said the government’s application reflected its fear of maintaining transparency in the matter, when this was key for a healthy democratic society.
“Article 10 of the Federal Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of speech for all Malaysians.
“Why use the excuse that (the addendum) touches on ‘sensitive issues’ to restrict public discussions on a matter that touches on the integrity of national institutions?
“On whose orders was the application for this gag order filed?” it asked in a statement.
Unnecessary
Senior Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdullah is of the view that a gag order is unnecessary, saying that it has been confirmed that the addendum is genuine and it is the public’s right to discuss and inquire answers on the issue.
“What remains in the court will be legal matters – how do you interpret Articles 40 and 42 (of the Federal Constitution). There are no factual issues to determine,” he said, adding that academicians and lawyers have the right to give their views.
MCA vice president Datuk Lawrence Low said the application for a gag order to prohibit discussions on the royal addendum for the former premier’s house arrest deals a blow to freedom of speech and raises doubts if the government truly practises transparency or upholds democracy.
Government Integrity
He noted that the former Pekan MP’s case has become a national topic of concern involving judicial fairness and government integrity and therefore the royal addendum should be subject to public scrutiny in the open and not quashed through a gag order.
Umno Supreme Council member, Datuk Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi in a Facebook post said the call for the gag order has fuelled speculation and negative assumptions on social media, damaging the government’s credibility.
Trust Deficit
The Umno leader also warned that a gag order from the court barring public discussion of Najib Razak’s bid to compel Putrajaya to execute an addendum order on house arrest would only worsen the trust deficit in the government.
He also said it would be in the government’s best interest for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to abandon its pursuit of the order. Otherwise, it risked fuelling the belief that the government was “hiding more secrets”.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, said on 13 January that the government will file for a gag and prohibitive order in the High Court to restrain the public from discussing Najib Razak’s bid to compel Putrajaya to execute an addendum allowing him to serve the remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
He said that Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah objected when he made an oral application for the order.
Sensitive Issues
“We applied for the order and asked that it remain in force pending the outcome of the hearing as it touches on sensitive issues,” he told reporters after a case management before Justice Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz.
He said the judge took note of the objection and directed the government to file a formal application by 20 Jan and thereafter, Najib will be given a week to reply.
Shafee said he objected to the application as the “horses had bolted from the barn”.
“It is an issue of public interest and has been debated widely in the past. Even the prime minister discussed it in and outside Parliament,” he added.
Lawyers appearing for MPs from Perikatan Nasional also said they intended to file a formal application to hold a watching brief in the judicial review proceedings, after their participation was opposed by Shamsul.
Akmal told lawyers Azhar Harun, Takiyuddin Hassan, and Zulkifli Noordin to file their papers by 27 Jan and allowed the government until 10 Feb to file its reply.
Shamsul also said both Najib and the government were directed to file all affidavits in the judicial review application by 6 March before the court proceeds to hear the application on its merits.
A case management will be held before a deputy registrar on 11 March.
On 6 Jan, the Court of Appeal, in a split ruling, granted Najib leave to pursue his judicial review application.
The appeals court also permitted him to adduce new evidence to show the existence of a supplementary decree issued by former Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah placing him under house arrest when the merits of his case are heard in the High Court.
Landmark Case
Justice Firuz Jaffril, delivering the majority decision, said Najib had fulfilled the criteria set out in the landmark case of Ladd v. Marshall for the introduction of new evidence.
He also noted that Najib had written to six of the seven respondents named in the appeal seeking to confirm the existence of the purported addendum but received no reply from any of them.
The six respondents were the home minister, the prisons commissioner general, the attorney-general, the Federal Territories Pardons Board (FTPB), the law and institutional reform minister, and the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Department’s legal affairs division.
The federal government was named as the seventh respondent in the appeal.
Justice Azhahari Kamal Ramli concurred with Firuz.
Justice Azizah Nawawi, who chaired the Court of Appeal bench, dissented.
The FTPB announced on 2 Feb last year that Najib’s prison sentence in his SRC International case had been halved from 12 years to six, and his fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million.
The former prime minister is currently serving his jail sentence at Kajang prison.
Najib filed his application for leave in the High Court on 1 April.
He claimed that the former king, during an FTPB meeting on Jan 29, 2024, also issued a supplementary decree allowing him to serve the remainder of his reduced jail term under house arrest.
He said the FTPB had omitted to announce the terms of the supplementary decree, and that the government was in contempt for not complying with it.
Recently, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the house arrest decree, dated 29 Jan, was sent to then attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh.
Anwar said Terrirudin sent it to Istana Negara after Sultan Ibrahim ascended the throne as the 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
“That’s the situation. We didn’t hide it,” he said at an event in Penang. – NMH
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments