In Malaysia, the phrases “kangaroo court” and “hanging judge” have taken on a chilling significance in the wake of controversial legal proceedings involving former Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Many people have heard of the phrases “kangaroo court” and “hanging judge.”
However, experiencing or discussing these issues in Malaysia is a different matter entirely.
It’s so sensitive that you could even be charged with contempt of court for bringing it up.
This chilling reality is exemplified by two high-profile court cases involving former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
The Missing Addendum
On 29 January 2024, Malaysia’s then King, Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah of Pahang, chaired the Pardons Board meeting where Najib’s 12-year prison sentence was halved, and his RM210 million fine was reduced to RM50 million.
Following this, Najib claimed there was a royal addendum allowing him to serve his sentence at home.
Initially, Najib contacted the Attorney-General’s chambers using various mediums about this matter through his defence team, but his claims were ignored.
Undeterred, he took the issue to court.
In July 2024, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Najib’s application, stating that his claims about the “addendum” were mere hearsay.
High Court Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh ruled that the affidavits presented were inadmissible, as they were based on what others had “heard” rather than personal knowledge.
Specifically, he noted that statements from Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail relied on second-hand information from then-Minister Tengku Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz.
The judge concluded that there was no case warranting further investigation at that time.
However, in January 2025, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s dismissal with a 2-1 majority ruling, stating that the hearsay argument “no longer stands” due to new evidence.
Another Kangaroo Court
In December 2025, a different High Court judge ruled that the order regarding the addendum was constitutionally invalid because it was never properly discussed or decided by the Pardons Board.
This ruling effectively dismissed Najib’s attempt to enforce the addendum for house arrest, although the debate over the addendum’s existence and validity is likely to continue in legal circles.
First, it was dismissed as hearsay, and then deemed invalid.
This is how the Malaysian courts handled a matter linked to a royal decree when Najib Razak was in the spotlight.
The situation raises serious questions about the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law in Malaysia.
The Infamous 1MDB Decision: A Judicial Farce
Najib has been handed a staggering 15-year prison sentence and a jaw-dropping fine of RM11.38 billion.
This massive ruling stems from the misappropriation of RM2.3 billion from the beleaguered 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
The verdict, delivered by Federal Court Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, followed Najib’s conviction on four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering.
Judge Sequerah firmly dismissed Najib’s claims that he had been misled by his subordinates or the elusive financier, Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.
Jho Low faces charges in several countries over this scandal, where billions have been recovered and properties confiscated.
Yet, in all these countries, Najib was never named as a suspect in the 1MDB affair.
What Integrity?
This raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process in Malaysia.
Despite Jho Low still being at large, Judge Sequerah ruled that several “credible” witnesses were sufficient to convict Najib.
Ironically, almost all the witnesses put forward by the prosecution had questionable ties to Jho Low.
Take Jasmine Loo, for instance, who was on the run until she was arrested overseas and later deported back to Malaysia.
Her assets have been seized in multiple countries due to her links to 1MDB, yet she was deemed a “credible” witness in the Malaysian courts.
Then there’s Tan Sri Zeti Aziz, the former Bank Negara Governor, whose husband and son were ordered to pay millions by the Singapore government over 1MDB-related issues.
Despite being at the helm of Bank Negara during the scandal, she was also labelled a “credible” witness.
This is how the judicial system operates in Malaysia, especially in high-profile cases where many have become victims of a flawed system.
Another poignant example of this is our current Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Anwar has faced imprisonment twice: first for abuse of power, then for sodomy.
The 10th Prime Minister has consistently maintained that he is a victim of Malaysia’s judiciary.
It would be enlightening to see Anwar pen a memoir detailing his experiences within this troubled legal landscape. – NMH
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments