The controversy surrounding the Royal Addendum that allows Najib Razak to serve his remaining prison sentence at home raises questions about the role of the King’s decrees and whether certain government officials are undermining Royal authority.
The issue of whether former Prime Minister Najib Razak will be allowed to serve the remainder of his prison sentence at home has reignited a national debate about the role of the monarchy in Malaysia’s justice system.
The Royal Addendum issued by the Pahang Sultan Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah when he was Malaysia’s 16th King in 2024, granting Najib the privilege to serve his sentence under house arrest, has been mired in legal and political challenges, with certain parties within the government seemingly ignoring or undermining the King’s decree. But does the government have the authority to disregard this decision? And more crucially, is the King’s word now being sidelined?
In a landmark move, the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong issued an Addendum to the Royal Decree that would have allowed Najib to serve the rest of his sentence under house detention instead of in prison. The letter containing this decree was forwarded to the then Attorney-General (AG), Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, but it was never acted upon. Instead, the document was sent to the current King for review, despite being an explicit directive from the previous monarch.
The failure of the AG and the government to execute the Royal Order raises fundamental questions: why was it ignored, and whose interests are being served by this inaction?
This even brought Najib to lodge a police report over the former AG’s alleged criminal misconduct of which the case has been brought to court and will be heard on 19 August this year.
Najib Razak’s Legal Stand
Frustrated by the lack of action, Najib took matters into his own hands. He wrote to the government and various relevant bodies demanding answers regarding the non-execution of the Addendum. Najib has cited Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the rights of citizens, including those who have been incarcerated, to be treated fairly and to have their rights upheld. He has argued that by withholding the Addendum, the government is depriving him of his legitimate entitlement as a citizen of Malaysia, a right granted to him by the monarch.
The Government’s Response, Or Lack Of
The current Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, in an attempt to defend the government’s stance, recently made an appeal to the Court of Appeal ruling. The AG argued that Najib did not act with due diligence in obtaining the Addendum letter, which was only presented by Najib’s son, Datuk Mohd Nizar, via an affidavit a day before the Appeal court hearing. This argument hinges on the assertion that it was Najib’s responsibility to ensure that the letter was in his possession.
However, the core of the issue is that the duty to deliver such a decree falls squarely on the government. It is not the responsibility of the individual or their family members to chase down royal decrees or exercise their rights in the absence of government action.
Tan Sri Shafee’s Stand
Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, counsel for Najib Razak, has been presenting compelling arguments at the Federal Court, shedding light on critical aspects of the case. One key point raised by Shafee relates to the Addendum, which pertains to the Royal Decree that would allow Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house detention. In response to the AG’s contention, Shafee explained that the language used in the two documents — the Pardon that specifies the reduction of sentence and fine, and the house detention order — differs because they were drafted by two different officers. In fact, Shafee pointed out that the language in the Addendum was “more regal” than the document containing the Pardon.
Shafee also highlighted a significant issue regarding communication between Najib’s legal team and the relevant authorities. He cited that all attempts to request clarification about the Addendum were met with silence, despite multiple letters sent to the relevant parties. This lack of response contrasts with the AG’s argument that Datuk Nizar, Najib’s son, should have presented the affidavit containing the letter from the Istana earlier. The AG claimed that, despite being incarcerated, Najib had access to all facilities and could have arranged for the documents to be acquired sooner. Moreover, the AG pointed out that Nizar, being a member of the Pahang Exco, could have approached the Istana directly for consultation on the matter.
This of course brought sighs of consternation from those in the courtroom as most Malaysians are aware, there is an art and certain protocols to observe when dealing with the Palace. Like this writer stated in my FB post: “We are talking about the Istana here. We must wait for them to call us. That is why we use the term ‘mencemar duli’.” This remark alludes to the established protocol when dealing with the royal palace, emphasizing the necessity of waiting for an invitation from the Istana. The term “mencemar duli” refers to the traditional practice of showing proper respect to the royal family by not making any unsolicited approach to the Istana, highlighting the need for formal invitation or engagement.
This key point of the legal argument underscores the delicate and formal nature of dealing with the monarchy, reminding both the court and the public of the protocols that govern such interactions. It is clear from Shafee’s statement and the surrounding context that the AG’s assumption that Najib and his team should have acted outside these formal protocols fails to acknowledge the unique and regulated relationship between the government and the Istana.
The Monarchy and the Rule of Law
The heart of this controversy lies in the very foundation of Malaysia’s Constitution: the role of the King. As the custodian of the nation’s sovereignty, the King holds the exclusive right to issue pardons, reprieves, and other forms of mercy. To challenge or disregard this prerogative undermines the very institution of the monarchy and raises serious concerns about the erosion of the rule of law.
It is essential to remind the Malaysian public that the monarch’s authority is enshrined in Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which grants the King the power to pardon, to commute sentences, and to take other actions as deemed necessary. The refusal to execute the Royal Addendum directly challenges this constitutional right and places the monarchy in a precarious position.
Call to the Rulers
With the upcoming Conference of Rulers meeting, expected to be held on 16 and 17 July 2025, there is a growing call for the rulers to weigh in on this issue. It is a critical moment for the monarchy to assert its authority and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. If certain government officials continue to flout the Royal Decree, it raises a serious question: Is the King’s word now no longer valid? Should the Rulers, as the highest authority in Malaysia, intervene to protect the integrity of the monarchy?
Ignoring a Royal Decree is not just a matter of legal negligence; it could very well be seen as an affront to the very fabric of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy. The implications of such actions go beyond Najib’s case—they represent a potential crack in the foundation of the monarchy’s role in the nation.
In conclusion, as the legal battle over Najib Razak’s sentence continues, the wider issue of respecting the monarchy’s authority comes into sharper focus. The Malaysian government must decide whether it will continue to ignore the wishes of the monarchy or whether it will uphold the decrees issued by the King. The upcoming Conference of Rulers presents an opportunity for the monarchy to make its stance clear, ensuring that royal decrees are respected and that the King’s authority remains intact in the eyes of the people. – NMH
Datin Hasnah is the co-founder and CEO of New Malaysia Herald based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With an extensive background in mass communication and journalism, she works on building up New Malaysia Herald and it’s partner sites. A tireless and passionate evangalist, she champions autism studies and support groups.
Datin Hasnah is also the Editor in Chief of New Malaysia Herald.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments