With the alleged mastermind still at large, granting clemency to fugitive Jho Low would leave Malaysia’s most consequential trial half-tried
According to the U.S. Justice Department website, fugitive financier Jho Taek Low (Jho Low) has filed a request for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump.
While Jho Low is still at large, former Prime Minister Najib Razak is in Kajang Prison. That contrast alone tells you everything wrong with how the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case has played out.
Jho Low is the man U.S. prosecutors call the architect of the $4.5 billion fraud that looted 1MDB. He was charged in 2018, fled, and has remained beyond the reach of Malaysian and U.S. law enforcement ever since.
Najib, by contrast, was tried, convicted, and is now serving time for corruption, money laundering and abuse of power tied to the same scandal.
Here is the problem: you cannot have a fair trial against the alleged beneficiary without the alleged mastermind in the room.
Jho Low This, Jho Low That, But Where Is He?
Throughout Najib’s trial in Malaysia, the prosecution’s narrative placed Jho Low at the centre of every transaction.
Tim Leissner, the former Goldman Sachs banker who pleaded guilty in the U.S., testified that Jho Low ran the scheme and invoked Najib’s authority to move the money.
Yet Jho Low never took the stand.
Malaysia maintains a Red Notice for Jho Low is active, but he is not listed publicly and remains at large.”
Najib was left to defend himself against accusations built around a man he could not cross-examine.
That matters. In any adversarial system, the right to confront your accuser and test the evidence is not a technicality. It is the mechanism that separates a conviction from a railroading.
When the central witness is absent, the court is forced to rely on second-hand accounts, emails and inferences about intent. That’s why there were boxes and boxes among the Prosecutors’ files with the title “Hearsay”.
Malaysian courts ultimately found that sufficient, but “sufficient” is not the same as “fair” when the person who could confirm or refute the entire chain of events remains beyond jurisdiction.
What Sentence?
The irony in Jho Low’s application is stark. He has filed for a “Pardon after Completion of Sentence” despite never having faced a sentence.
The DOJ lists the request as pending with no further details.
If granted, the pardon would extinguish U.S. charges and remove any legal incentive for him to ever return and testify.
It would permanently freeze the record in amber, with Najib convicted and Jho Low free.
That is not justice. It is closure by attrition.
A pardon in this case does not merely forgive Jho Low but validates the idea that fleeing jurisdiction and waiting out the news cycle is a viable legal strategy for the wealthy and connected.
Precedents
It tells every future white-collar fugitive that if you hold out long enough, you can negotiate your way out while your co-defendants take the fall.
Supporters will argue it is about Jho Low offering to return hundreds of millions if charges are dropped, but transactional clemency makes sense only when the trade actually serves justice.
Returning money does not restore the process that was denied to Najib, nor does it restore public confidence that the law applies equally.
If the U.S. is serious about the rule of law, it should deny the pardon and cooperate with Malaysia to bring Jho Low back.
The 1MDB saga will not be resolved by forgiving the man everyone agrees ran it.
It will only be resolved when he faces a courtroom and answers the questions Najib was never allowed to ask.
Until then, what we have is not a concluded case. It is a half-tried one, and a pardon would make sure it stays that way. – NMH
The writer is the Vice-president of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.
Facebook Comments