KUALA LUMPUR (April 7): ARC Group returns to Kuala Lumpur for its Capital Markets & M&A Forum 2026, set to take place on May 7 at EQ, Equatorial Plaza, as corporates and investors navigate a more volatile global environment.

The forum comes as companies — particularly in the mid-market segment — reassess capital-raising strategies amid tighter liquidity, evolving interest rate expectations and uneven global growth prospects.

Against this backdrop, ARC Group is positioning this year’s forum around capital formation strategies, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and international expansion — themes that are gaining urgency as firms seek alternative pathways for growth beyond domestic markets.

ARC Group builds momentum from 2025

Last year’s Kuala Lumpur edition drew more than 500 participants, including senior executives, institutional investors, legal advisors and financial professionals, underscoring the forum’s growing relevance as a regional meeting point for dealmakers.

The 2026 edition is expected to surpass that turnout, reflecting sustained interest in cross-border opportunities as companies explore listings and fundraising avenues beyond local exchanges.

Unlike traditional conferences, the forum is structured as a curated platform for founders, C-suite executives and investors, with a focus on closed-door discussions and high-level networking aimed at facilitating transactions and partnerships.

Nasdaq participation signals global push

A key highlight this year is the participation of Nasdaq, with its ASEAN capital markets lead Hiren Krishnani expected to provide insights into IPO readiness, investor engagement and access to global capital markets.

The inclusion of a major US exchange operator reflects a broader trend of Southeast Asian companies — particularly from the mid-market segment — exploring overseas listings in search of deeper liquidity, stronger valuations and a more diversified investor base.

For Malaysian companies, this comes at a time when domestic capital markets remain active but face increasing competition from international exchanges offering scale and visibility.

Malaysia’s positioning in a shifting landscape

Malaysia has in recent years positioned itself as a relatively stable financial hub within Southeast Asia, supported by a mature regulatory framework and steady institutional participation.

However, the current environment — characterised by external headwinds, currency pressures and cautious investor sentiment — is prompting some companies to look beyond local markets for growth and capital access.

At the same time, cross-border M&A activity in the region has picked up, driven by supply chain realignments, digital transformation and strategic consolidation across sectors.

In this context, platforms such as ARC Group’s forum are increasingly seen as conduits connecting regional companies with global capital and advisory networks.

A platform for cross-border dealmaking

Founded more than a decade ago, ARC Group operates as a global investment banking and advisory firm focused on cross-border transactions, capital markets and corporate strategy.

With a presence spanning Asia, the United States, Europe and the Middle East, the firm supports companies in navigating international fundraising, mergers and acquisitions, and market entry strategies.

Its Kuala Lumpur forum is part of a broader series held across major financial centres, aimed at bringing together investors, corporates and advisors to exchange insights and originate deals.

As global markets continue to recalibrate, ARC Group’s continued focus on Southeast Asia highlights the region’s growing role in cross-border capital flows — even as companies adopt a more outward-looking approach in response to evolving economic conditions. – NMH

The post ARC Group Brings Capital Markets Forum Back to KL first appeared on NMH.

The High Court’s ruling in the SRC civil case pertaining to SRC International may have settled liability — but it leaves accountability open to question.

Based on points raised by defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in a press conference following the judgment, a central and disquieting issue remains:

At its core, the issue is not simply legal — it is structural.

How does a collective decision ultimately become the liability of a single individual?

A Governance Structure That Recedes

Corporate governance is built on shared responsibility.

Boards deliberate. Management executes. Decisions are recorded, scrutinised, and justified. This architecture exists to prevent both the concentration of unchecked power—and the concentration of unchecked blame.

Yet in the SRC civil case, that structure appears to recede into the background.

A board of directors existed. A management team was in place. Both were entrusted—and compensated—to exercise independent judgment. Yet in the final analysis, accountability appears to have converged on a single individual.

If decisions were made within a corporate framework, where has that framework gone in the assignment of liability?

Anything less risks reducing governance to form rather than function.

Influence, Control — and Responsibility

At the material time, Datuk Seri Najib Razak was Prime Minister and held a position of influence in relation to SRC.

But influence, in corporate law, is not the same as control.

Directors do not cease to be fiduciaries simply because a dominant figure exists. They are not absolved of responsibility by deferring upward. If anything, the law expects them to exercise greater vigilance.

Which leads to a sharper question:

If influence explains the decisions, does it also excuse everyone else who made them?

To accept that a sitting Prime Minister functioned as the sole effective decision-maker within a corporate structure is to raise a deeper concern—not just about power, but about the absence of institutional resistance.

The “Shadow Director” Question

Another point that has drawn attention is the repeated reference during proceedings to Datuk Seri Najib Razak as a “shadow director”, alongside assertions of abuse of power.

In corporate law, the concept of a shadow director is not unfamiliar. However, it carries a specific and demanding threshold—typically requiring clear evidence that a board of directors was accustomed to act in accordance with that individual’s directions or instructions.

This raises an important question: was that threshold sufficiently established, particularly in the absence of direct testimony from board members indicating such control?

The distinction is critical. Influence, even at the highest levels, is not automatically equivalent to control.

If the threshold for such a designation is not clearly demonstrated, its repeated invocation risks blurring the line between influence and legal control.

The Flow of Funds — and the Question of Benefit

Another issue raised relates to the movement of funds through accounts linked to Najib.

As highlighted by the defence, the position taken is that while funds entered the account, they were subsequently transferred out to various third parties. It is further contended that these transactions were handled by an authorised mandate holder—Nik Faisal—who has since left the jurisdiction.

If established, such a characterisation raises a critical distinction:

Was the account functioning as a beneficiary endpoint—or merely as a conduit?

The distinction is not trivial. It goes directly to questions of control, knowledge, and ultimately, liability.

Similarly, references to abuse of power and personal benefit form a significant part of the narrative surrounding the case. Yet where the movement of funds is itself contested, the question of benefit becomes less straightforward than it may first appear.

SRC Civil Case: A Troubling Precedent?

Globally, corporate failures have rarely resulted in liability being isolated so narrowly.

In the Enron scandal, responsibility extended across senior executives and enablers.
In the WorldCom accounting scandal, multiple actors were held to account.
In the UK’s collapse of Carillion, scrutiny has consistently focused on the collective conduct of directors.

These cases reinforce a principle that is both simple and enduring:

Where governance is collective, accountability is rarely singular.

When Boards Become Invisible

One of the more troubling implications of the SRC ruling is what it suggests about the role of boards.

If directors can point upward to explain decisions—but not downward to share responsibility—then the balance of governance begins to break.

A board that makes decisions but bears no consequences is not governance—it is insulation.

If a board exists only to formalise decisions — but not to bear responsibility—then corporate governance risks becoming performative rather than substantive.

And if directors merely endorsed decisions, then they failed in their duty.
If they did not, then their absence from liability demands explanation.

The Unanswered Question

The dismissal of third-party claims may have closed one legal avenue — but it has not resolved the broader issue.

Because at its core, the SRC civil case is no longer just about liability.

It is about consistency.
It is about accountability.
And it is about whether established principles are being applied evenly.

SRC Civil Case – Conclusion

An appeal is expected.

And perhaps more importantly, an opportunity remains—to clarify whether the law intends to follow its own logic.

Because when responsibility is shared but liability is not, the question is no longer merely legal—it is structural.

And until that is addressed, one question will continue to linger:

How does a collective decision ultimately become the liability of a single individual?

If that is so, does it call for a re-examination of how responsibility is assigned to corporate actors in future litigation? – NMH

The post SRC Civil Case: Collective Decisions, But Only One Man Pays? first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 31 Mac 2026 – Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes sivil SRC International mungkin telah menetapkan liabiliti dari sudut undang-undang — namun dari sudut logik dan akauntabiliti, persoalan yang timbul jauh lebih besar daripada jawapan yang diberikan.

Dalam satu sidang media selepas keputusan tersebut, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, peguambela mantan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, membangkitkan beberapa isu utama yang menurutnya wajar diberi perhatian.

Ini bukan sekadar soal siapa kalah atau menang.
Ini soal siapa sebenarnya dipertanggungjawabkan — dan siapa yang terlepas.

Seorang Menanggung, Yang Lain Hilang?

Fakta asasnya tidak rumit.

SRC mempunyai lembaga pengarah dan pasukan pengurusan yang dibayar lumayan untuk membuat keputusan, menilai risiko dan menjaga kepentingan syarikat.

Namun dalam tindakan sivil ini, sebahagian besar daripada mereka telah dikeluarkan daripada saman— meninggalkan Datuk Seri Najib Razak hampir bersendirian menanggung liabiliti.

Persoalannya mudah tetapi tidak selesa:
Bagaimana sebuah syarikat membuat keputusan kolektif — tetapi liabiliti akhirnya menjadi tanggungan individu tunggal?

Jika ini bukan jurang dalam akauntabiliti, maka apakah ia?

Perdana Menteri — Atau “Operator Tunggal”?

Pada waktu kejadian, Najib adalah Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Adakah munasabah untuk menerima bahawa seorang Perdana Menteri, dengan pelbagai tanggungjawab nasional, bertindak seolah-olah mengurus operasi harian sebuah syarikat — tanpa semak dan imbang daripada lembaga pengarah dan pengurusan?

Jika benar beliau begitu berpengaruh sehingga semua keputusan mengikut kehendaknya, maka persoalan yang lebih membimbangkan timbul:

Adakah lembaga pengarah SRC sekadar “yes men”?

Jika ya, mengapa mereka tidak turut dipertanggungjawabkan atas kegagalan menjalankan tugas fidusiari?

Jika tidak, mengapa liabiliti tidak dikongsi?

Jika benar pengaruh begitu kuat sehingga semua keputusan mengikut kehendaknya, maka persoalan lebih besar timbul — adakah lembaga pengarah sekadar ‘yes men’?

“Shadow Director” Tanpa Bayang Bukti?

Penemuan bahawa Najib bertindak sebagai “shadow director” membawa implikasi besar.

Namun, seperti dihujahkan pihak pembelaan, tiada keterangan saksi yang menunjukkan arahan beliau adalah wajib dipatuhi oleh lembaga pengarah.

Tiada pengarah tampil menyatakan mereka dikawal.
Tiada bukti langsung arahan yang mengikat.

Pengaruh tidak semestinya kawalan.
Dan tanpa garis pemisah yang jelas, konsep “shadow director” berisiko diperluaskan secara berbahaya.

Lembaga Pengarah: Tanggungjawab Atau Sekadar Formaliti?

Prinsip undang-undang korporat adalah jelas:
Lembaga pengarah bertanggungjawab kepada syarikat — bukan kepada pemegang saham, walau sebesar mana pengaruh mereka.

Jika lembaga boleh berlindung di sebalik alasan “mengikut arahan”, maka fungsi semak dan imbang runtuh sepenuhnya.

Lebih membimbangkan, ia mewujudkan satu preseden:
keputusan boleh dibuat secara kolektif, tetapi liabiliti boleh dipilih secara selektif.

Tuntutan Pihak Ketiga Ditolak — Isyarat Apa?

Cubaan untuk membawa semula pengarah lain melalui tuntutan pihak ketiga telah gagal.

Namun kegagalan ini tidak menjawab persoalan asas — ia hanya menutup pintu kepada perbahasan lanjut mengenai peranan sebenar mereka.

Dalam konteks ini, penolakan tersebut dilihat bukan sebagai penyelesaian, tetapi sebagai satu lagi lapisan persoalan yang belum terjawab.

Angka Besar, Penjelasan Kecil

Komponen kewangan penghakiman — USD 1.1 bilion dan USD 120 juta — juga menimbulkan tanda tanya dari segi struktur dan kejelasan.

Dalam kes berprofil tinggi seperti ini, ketepatan bukan sekadar keperluan teknikal.
Ia adalah asas kepada keyakinan terhadap keadilan itu sendiri.

Keputusan Kes Sivil SRC Belum Penamat

Rayuan akan difailkan.

Dan dengan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan, ia bukan sahaja wajar—malah perlu.

Kerana kes sivil SRC ini kini melangkaui individu.
Ia menyentuh asas yang lebih besar:

• Siapa sebenarnya bertanggungjawab dalam sesebuah syarikat?
• Adakah lembaga pengarah benar-benar dipertanggungjawabkan?
• Atau adakah liabiliti akhirnya bergantung kepada siapa yang paling mudah dipersalahkan?

Selagi persoalan ini belum dijawab, keputusan ini akan terus diperdebatkan—bukan sahaja di mahkamah, tetapi juga dalam ruang awam dan profesional. Bagaimana keputusan kolektif akhirnya menjadi liabiliti individu — dan hanya kepada seorang? – NMH

The post Kes Sivil SRC: Keputusan Menimbulkan Persoalan Serius first appeared on NMH.

Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini diberitahu bahawa bekas perdana menteri Najib Razak tidak mengurus secara mikro operasi SRC International atau 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi bersetuju semasa pemeriksaan semula oleh peguam bela Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah bahawa Najib tidak pernah menghubunginya untuk mengarahkan beliau memaklumkan kepada lembaga pengarah supaya meluluskan sebarang keputusan syarikat.

Tadbir urus SRC dibangkitkan

Shafee mencadangkan bahawa dalam struktur tadbir urus korporat, keputusan syarikat sepatutnya datang daripada pihak pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah sebelum dipertimbangkan oleh pemegang saham, bukannya diarahkan secara terus dari pihak atasan.

Beliau turut berhujah bahawa Najib, yang ketika itu merupakan perdana menteri dan menteri kewangan, tidak terlibat dalam pengurusan harian syarikat-syarikat tersebut.

Menurut Shafee, walaupun sebuah pejabat kecil pernah disediakan untuk Najib di 1MDB, beliau tidak pernah menggunakannya, manakala di SRC International pula tiada pejabat khas disediakan untuknya.

Peguam itu turut menekankan kelayakan profesional anggota pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah syarikat pada masa itu, termasuk Tan Sri Ismee Ismail serta beberapa tokoh korporat lain yang berpengalaman.

Shafee berkata sekiranya Najib mempunyai niat untuk menyalahgunakan kedudukannya bagi kepentingan peribadi, beliau tidak akan melantik individu berkelayakan tinggi untuk mengurus syarikat tersebut.

Asal-usul TIA

Mahkamah turut mendengar mengenai penubuhan Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), yang kemudiannya menjadi asas kepada penubuhan 1MDB.

Shafee berkata idea penubuhan TIA pada asalnya dicetuskan oleh ahli perniagaan dalam buruan Jho Low sebagai dana kekayaan berdaulat untuk negeri Terengganu.

Cadangan itu menurutnya dikemukakan kepada Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, yang dikatakan telah mengenali Jho Low lebih awal daripada Najib.

Bagaimanapun, projek tersebut kemudiannya menjadi pertikaian di peringkat kerajaan negeri sebelum akhirnya diambil alih oleh kerajaan Persekutuan dan dinamakan semula sebagai 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Perkembangan itu berlaku dalam tempoh peralihan pentadbiran daripada bekas perdana menteri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi kepada Najib.

Mahkamah turut diberitahu bahawa Shahrol mengenali Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil lebih awal melalui Wynton Pte Equity Group, sebuah entiti yang dikaitkan dengan Jho Low.

Nik Faisal kemudiannya dilantik sebagai ketua pegawai eksekutif SRC International pada 2010.

Dalam kenyataan kepada Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission sebelum ini, Nik Faisal mendakwa beliau dilantik oleh Shahrol, namun perkara itu dinafikan oleh Shahrol di mahkamah.

Nik Faisal kini dilaporkan telah lari ke luar negara dan masih belum kembali untuk memberi keterangan.

Perbicaraan sivil berhubung SRC International diteruskan dengan mahkamah meneliti aspek tadbir urus, struktur pengurusan serta proses membuat keputusan dalam syarikat tersebut dan kaitannya dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad. – NMH

Baca juga:
Keadilan Akhirnya Menang – Perjalanan Panjang Najib Berakhir Dalam Kes SRC 2.0

The post Perbicaraan SRC: Shahrol Setuju Najib Tidak Campur Tangan Urus 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR – Former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court that SRC International decisions were not micromanaged by former prime minister Najib Razak, agreeing he had never been instructed to direct the board on corporate matters.

Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court today that former prime minister Najib Razak did not micromanage the operations of SRC International or 1Malaysia Development Berhad, agreeing during re-examination that Najib had never instructed him to tell the board to approve any corporate decisions.

During questioning by defence counsel Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, Shahrol also agreed that Najib had never personally called him to direct that the board of directors approve any particular investment, transaction or corporate decision involving the two companies.

Shafee suggested that corporate governance within 1MDB and SRC required decisions to originate from management and the board of directors, rather than being imposed from the top by the shareholder or political leadership.

Governance: Shahrol Says Najib Never Directed Board Decisions

The defence also highlighted the professional credentials of the company’s leadership at the time, including board members and senior executives such as Tan Sri Ismee Ismail and other senior officials, arguing that they were highly qualified individuals entrusted with overseeing the companies’ management and governance.

Shafee also traced the origins of 1MDB, telling the court that the idea for the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) — the predecessor to 1MDB — was initially mooted by fugitive financier Jho Low.

He said the proposal was presented to Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin before the fund was eventually taken over by the federal government following disagreements at the state level and subsequently renamed 1MDB.

SRC Origins and Role of Nik Faisal Raised in Court

During the session, Shahrol confirmed that he had met Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil earlier through Winton, an entity linked to Jho Low. Nik Faisal later became chief executive officer of SRC International.

Shafee suggested that Najib had initially not known Nik Faisal and only became aware of him after his profile was presented.

Nik Faisal, who is currently a fugitive, had previously told the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that he had been appointed by Shahrol — a claim Shahrol denied during the trial.

The court will continue hearing testimony related to the management and governance of SRC International, as the civil proceedings scrutinise the roles of management, the board and shareholder representatives in the company’s decision-making process. – NMH

Also read:
Justice Finally Prevails In SRC 2.0 – Najib’s Long Wait Ends

The post SRC Trial: Shahrol Agrees Najib Did Not Micromanage 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

Penghakiman terbaharu terhadap Datuk Seri Najib Razak telah melangkaui ruang perbahasan biasa mengenai salah atau tidak salah. Ia kini menjadi simbol kepada satu kebimbangan yang lebih besar — bahawa keadilan sedang dilaksanakan tanpa keseimbangan, tanpa ihsan, dan tanpa kesederhanaan yang sepatutnya menjadi asas kepada sistem perundangan sebuah negara berperlembagaan.

Tiada siapa yang menuntut layanan istimewa untuk Najib. Namun apa yang dipersoalkan ialah sama ada prinsip keadilan yang sama sedang diterapkan, atau sama ada hukuman telah berubah menjadi satu bentuk demonstrasi kuasa yang keras dan tidak perlu.

Penolakan Mutlak Terhadap Sumbangan Arab Saudi

Antara aspek paling mengelirukan dalam penghakiman ini ialah penolakan mutlak terhadap dakwaan sumbangan daripada pihak Arab Saudi, yang dilabel sebagai “palsu”. Kesimpulan ini dibuat tanpa memberikan pertimbangan wajar kepada fakta penting yang telah lama diketahui umum.

Satu pasukan penyiasat khas yang diketuai oleh SPRM bersama Polis Diraja Malaysia telah dihantar ke Riyadh untuk menyiasat perkara ini. Lebih signifikan, arahan untuk siasatan antarabangsa tersebut datang daripada Najib Razak sendiri, selaku Perdana Menteri ketika itu.

Adalah sukar untuk menerima secara logik bahawa seseorang yang kononnya memalsukan sumber dana akan mengarahkan siasatan rasmi, merentas sempadan, ke negara asal dana tersebut. Tindakan ini, sekurang-kurangnya, menunjukkan kepercayaan tulen bahawa sumbangan itu wujud dan boleh disahkan melalui saluran sah.

Tambahan pula, isu sumbangan ini pernah dilaporkan oleh media antarabangsa berwibawa seperti Reuters dan The Guardian. Walaupun laporan media bukan penentu kebenaran undang-undang, ia mengukuhkan hakikat bahawa isu ini mempunyai asas fakta dan konteks antarabangsa — bukan rekaan sewenang-wenangnya.

Keterangan Terpilih dan Soal Kredibiliti

Lebih membimbangkan ialah kebergantungan mahkamah terhadap keterangan Jasmine Loo, yang pernah berkhidmat di firma guaman yang sama dengan Hakim Collin, Zain & Co, sebelum kemudiannya menjadi pelarian dan dikaitkan dengan penyelewengan jutaan ringgit dana 1MDB.

Kredibiliti saksi ini telah lama dipersoalkan. Terdapat juga keterangan lain yang mencabar dakwaannya, termasuk daripada saksi yang lebih bebas dan munasabah. Namun begitu, kenyataannya masih dirujuk bagi menyokong dapatan bahawa surat-surat diraja tersebut adalah palsu.

Dalam sistem keadilan yang sihat, persoalan bukan sekadar siapa yang memberi keterangan, tetapi mengapa keterangan tertentu diberi keutamaan sementara bukti lain diketepikan tanpa alasan yang meyakinkan. Apabila penilaian bukti kelihatan terpilih, persepsi ketidakadilan menjadi sukar dielakkan.

Hukuman Terhadap Najib: Antara Keadilan dan Penghinaan

Tahap hukuman yang dikenakan terhadap Najib Razak menambah lagi kebimbangan. Jumlah denda yang luar biasa serta tempoh hukuman penjara yang panjang kelihatan tidak seimbang dan melampaui prinsip kewajaran.

Hukuman yang terlalu berat tidak semestinya mencerminkan keadilan yang tegas. Dalam keadaan tertentu, ia lebih mudah ditafsirkan sebagai usaha untuk mengaibkan — menghantar mesej bukan sahaja kepada tertuduh, tetapi kepada masyarakat, bahawa belas ihsan dan kesederhanaan tidak lagi menjadi pertimbangan.

Dalam sebuah sistem yang matang, hukuman berfungsi untuk menegakkan undang-undang, bukan untuk memuaskan kemarahan awam atau menjadikan seseorang sebagai simbol penghinaan berpanjangan.

Nada Najib dan Kontras Moral

Dalam kenyataan peribadinya kepada media, Najib Razak menegaskan bahawa perjuangannya bukan untuk mengelak tanggungjawab, tetapi untuk menuntut hak yang diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang serta mempertahankan integriti Perlembagaan. Beliau turut menyeru rakyat Malaysia agar kekal tenang, rasional dan tidak terlibat dalam sebarang provokasi yang boleh menjejaskan keharmonian awam atau menghina proses perundangan.

Nada ini — sama ada disukai atau tidak — berdiri dalam kontras yang ketara dengan gambaran seorang individu yang kononnya mencabar sistem kehakiman. Ia mencerminkan pendirian untuk terus berjuang melalui saluran sah, dengan maruah dan kesabaran.

Artikel ini bukan pembelaan peribadi terhadap Najib Razak, dan bukan juga penafian terhadap kesalahan. Ia adalah seruan supaya keadilan dilaksanakan dengan kebijaksanaan, konsistensi dan keseimbangan.

Apabila hukuman dilihat keras tanpa timbang rasa, dan keputusan kelihatan menutup ruang kepada keraguan munasabah, maka yang terhakis bukan maruah seorang individu — tetapi keyakinan rakyat terhadap sistem keadilan itu sendiri.

Jika itu berlaku, kerosakan yang ditinggalkan akan jauh lebih besar daripada mana-mana kes individu. – NMH

The post Najib Razak: Apabila Hukuman Menjadi Instrumen Penghinaan first appeared on NMH.

The Royal Addendum — a written instruction exercising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s constitutional power of mercy — has been rejected by the courts. Legally, the matter may be closed. Politically and constitutionally, however, the decision widens a dangerous precedent: it signals that even a royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without meaningful engagement with the Rulers themselves.

A Royal Pardon, in this case brought out in the Royal Addendum issued by Malaysia’s 16th King, is not a declaration of innocence. It is not a technical loophole in the justice system. It is an act of mercy — a constitutional safeguard meant to humanise the law when strict procedure may satisfy legality but fail justice.

That is why this is far more than a case about one former prime minister.
It is about the Power of Mercy and the health of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy.

Royal Addendum – When Mercy Becomes a Paper Tiger

In a constitutional monarchy, the Agong’s powers are not ceremonial. The prerogative of mercy exists as a moral counterbalance to the rigidity of law — a reminder that justice without humanity risks becoming cruelty.

Yet the King’s addendum was rejected largely on procedural grounds, without public engagement with the palace, without transparency on whether legal advice was sought by the Agong, and without reassurance that royal discretion was meaningfully weighed.

If mercy can be so easily constrained today, what happens tomorrow when a case involves another citizen, another monarch, or another constitutional test?

The silence of the Malay Rulers on this matter is deeply troubling. Silence risks normalising a future in which mercy exists only in theory — acknowledged in law, but sidelined in practice.

From Royal Instruction to Political Celebration

Then came the politics.

DAP’s Yeo Bee Yin posted: “Another reason to celebrate this year end.”

Separately, Raja Sara Petra Kamarudin summarised the outcome starkly:

The King’s addendum rejected.
House arrest denied.
Three years remain in Kajang.

Both statements are legally accurate. Only one is celebratory. And that distinction matters.

Yeo Bee Yin’s post caused more damage than the courts themselves — not because Najib Razak is innocent, but because it confirmed what many within UMNO have long suspected: this was never solely about law or justice. It was also about humiliation.

Justice demands restraint.
Mercy demands humility.
Celebration demands neither — and has no place when constitutional prerogatives are at stake.

UMNO’s Silence Is the Real Test Of The Addendum

This is where the focus shifts from Najib to UMNO.

UMNO sits in government. UMNO provides parliamentary stability. UMNO bears the political and emotional cost of a unity government — repeatedly.

Yet when a senior figure from within the same government publicly celebrates Najib’s continued incarceration, UMNO is cornered.

This is no longer just a legal or moral matter.
It is a political insult.

Will UMNO remain silent yet again?
Will it issue another carefully worded statement about “respecting the courts” while its dignity is publicly eroded?

Every time Najib is mocked by political allies, it is not Najib alone who is diminished. It is UMNO’s bargaining power, its relevance, and its standing within the coalition.

A unity government cannot survive on asymmetry — where one partner absorbs the blows while another pops the champagne.

Also read: BLACK DAY FOR JUSTICE FOR MALAYSIA AS NAJIB BEGINS SENTENCE

The Precedent That Remains

Najib Razak will continue serving his sentence.
The courts have spoken.

But the precedent remains.

A royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without the Rulers’ voice.
Political allies can celebrate a partner’s humiliation without consequence.
And the constitutional meaning of the Royal Pardon can be quietly narrowed.

The King’s addendum may be rejected.
But the erosion of mercy has been recorded.

Now we wait — not for the courts, but for the Rulers to reflect, and for UMNO to decide whether it still understands the power it claims to defend.

Because when mercy is weakened, justice itself becomes smaller. – NMH

The post Royal Addendum: When The Power Of Mercy Is Being Quietly Eroded first appeared on NMH.

Shafee: Liberty Cannot Be Suspended

KUALA LUMPUR – Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah’s statement today, issued in reaction to the press release by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Attorney-General Chambers, is more than a defence of his client, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. It is a reminder that Malaysia’s justice system must remain vigilant against executive overreach. His words underscore the principle that liberty, once granted by the constitution, cannot be suspended at the convenience of the government.

Shafee’s insistence that a house arrest order — if granted — must be enforced immediately is not simply a procedural point. It is a constitutional one. To delay such an order would be to dilute the very meaning of liberty, reducing fundamental rights to administrative discretion.

Evidence and Fair Trial

Equally significant are Shafee’s concerns about access to evidence. He has pointed out that crucial documents and testimonies, including those linked to Goldman Sachs and Tim Leissner, remain out of reach for Najib’s defence team. If exculpatory material is withheld, the fairness of the trial itself comes into question.

This is not a matter of sympathy for a single defendant. It is about whether Malaysia’s courts can uphold the principle that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Executive Commentary and Public Confidence

The government’s press statement may have been intended to reassure the public, but Shafee’s response highlights a deeper issue: the risk of executive commentary shaping perceptions of ongoing judicial proceedings. When official pronouncements appear to pre-empt or condition court decisions, they erode confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Why It Matters

Malaysia’s judiciary now faces a defining test. Will it enforce constitutional rights without compromise, or will political calculation seep into the administration of justice? Shafee’s statement ensures that this question cannot be ignored.

This case is not just about Najib Razak. It is about the credibility of Malaysia’s institutions, the separation of powers, and the assurance that constitutional guarantees are more than words on paper.

Crucial Week Ahead for Najib

Next week will mark a decisive moment for Datuk Seri Najib Razak. On 22 December, the High Court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on the Addendum application, which could determine whether Najib is entitled to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest. Just days later, on 26 December, Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah will pronounce judgment in the long‑running 1MDB–Tanore trial, a case that has been central to Malaysia’s most high‑profile financial scandal. Together, these back‑to‑back decisions will shape not only Najib’s immediate future but also the wider narrative of judicial independence and accountability in Malaysia.

Closing Thoughts

Beyond Malaysia’s borders, the implications of these two cases are closely watched. Judicial independence is not only a domestic concern but also a marker of credibility in the eyes of investors, international partners, and global institutions. When constitutional rights are seen to be compromised or subject to political influence, confidence in Malaysia’s governance and economic stability can be shaken. Shafee’s statement, therefore, is more than a legal defence — it is a reminder that the integrity of the justice system is inseparable from the nation’s reputation on the world stage. – NMH

The post Shafee: Authorities’ Statement Raises Concerns About Judicial Independence first appeared on NMH.

Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC) secara rasmi telah menghentikan rayuannya dalam kes pertuduhan pengubahan wang haram (AMLA) terhadap Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, menurut pemfailan rasmi bertarikh 9 dan 11 Disember 2025. Notis Penarikan Balik yang dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyebabkan tarikh pengurusan kes yang dijadualkan pada 22 Disember dibatalkan serta-merta, dan rayuan kini direkodkan sebagai selesai di bawah Kaedah 73, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994.

Penarikan balik ini secara efektif menamatkan cabaran pihak pendakwaan terhadap perkembangan mahkamah sebelum ini berkaitan kes AMLA tersebut. Ia menutup satu laluan yang telah berlarutan selama beberapa tahun, melibatkan pelbagai peringkat perbicaraan, semakan pentadbiran dan hujahan undang-undang. Dengan Notis Penarikan Balik diterima oleh Mahkamah, kes ini beralih daripada litigasi aktif kepada penutupan rasmi di peringkat rayuan.

Penamat Selepas Bertahun-Tahun Diperhatikan Umum

Prosiding AMLA terhadap Rosmah merupakan antara kes yang paling mendapat perhatian di negara ini, menarik minat umum dan liputan media sejak pertuduhan mula-mula dibawa. Sepanjang bertahun-tahun, kes ini melalui rangkaian proses undang-undang yang kompleks, termasuk permohonan pra-perbicaraan, keputusan interlokutori, serta proses rayuan seterusnya.

Keputusan pihak pendakwaan untuk menarik balik rayuan kini membawa satu rasa penamat. Dengan penarikan tersebut berkuat kuasa, semua urusan pentadbiran berkaitan rayuan telah diselesaikan, dan Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengesahkan bahawa fail kini ditutup.

Rosmah Kekal Berdiam Diri Ketika Prosiding Berakhir

Sepanjang proses undang-undang, Rosmah Mansor telah mematuhi semua keperluan mahkamah sambil mengekalkan pendirian berdiam diri di khalayak. Seperti pendekatannya sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini, beliau tidak mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan berhubung keputusan pihak pendakwaan untuk menghentikan rayuan.

Bagi dirinya, penarikan balik ini menandakan berakhirnya satu lagi bab panjang dalam perjalanan undang-undangnya, yang berlangsung di bawah pemerhatian meluas negara. Ia pastinya berita yang dialu-alukan, sehari selepas ulang tahun kelahirannya yang ke-74.

Kes Yang Membentuk Wacana Awam

Prosiding AMLA ini, dengan tempoh dan profilnya yang tinggi, telah menjadi sebahagian penting daripada perbualan undang-undang dan politik Malaysia sepanjang beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini. Komuniti undang-undang secara khusus menggambarkan kesimpulan rayuan ini sebagai satu pencapaian prosedural yang penting, memberikan penutup kepada suatu perkara yang kekal aktif sejak setahun lalu.

The post Kes AMLA Rosmah Mansor: Penarikan Rayuan Membawa Penamat first appeared on NMH.

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has formally discontinued its appeal in the money-laundering (AMLA) charges involving Rosmah Mansor, according to official filings dated 9 and 11 December 2025. The Notice of Discontinuance, submitted to the Court of Appeal, resulted in the immediate vacating of the scheduled 22 December case management date, and the appeal has now been recorded as concluded under Order 73 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

The withdrawal effectively ends the prosecution’s challenge to earlier court developments relating to the AMLA matter. It closes a path that has extended across several years, involving multiple stages of hearings, administrative reviews and legal submissions. With the Notice of Discontinuance accepted by the Court, the case moves from active litigation to formal closure at the appellate level.

Finality After Years of Public Scrutiny

The AMLA proceedings against Rosmah have been among the most closely followed cases in the country, drawing significant public and media attention since the charges were first brought. Over the years, the case navigated a complex sequence of legal steps, including pre-trial applications, interlocutory decisions, and subsequent appellate processes.

The prosecution’s decision to withdraw the appeal now brings a sense of finality. With the withdrawal in effect, all administrative matters tied to the appeal have been settled, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the file is now closed.

Rosmah Reserves Response as Proceedings Conclude

Throughout the legal process, Rosmah Mansor has adhered to all court requirements while maintaining a reserved position publicly. Consistent with her approach in recent years, she has not issued any statement regarding the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the appeal.

Understandably for her, the withdrawal marks the end of another long chapter in her legal journey, which has unfolded under extensive national scrutiny. It is surely welcome news indeed, a day after her 74th birthday.

A Case That Shaped Public Discourse

The AMLA proceedings, given their duration and public profile, have formed a notable part of Malaysia’s wider legal and political conversation over the past several years. The legal community would notably describe the appeal’s conclusion as an important procedural milestone, providing closure to a matter that has remained active since a year ago. – NMH

The post Rosmah Mansor’s AMLA Case: Appeal Withdrawal Brings Finality first appeared on NMH.