However, Fahmi did not elaborate on who had access to the document or was aware about it.
He maintained that the government’s response to the issue – that it could not answer whether the addendum existed as it would have been sub judice – was based on sound legal advice.
“We must follow the advice and views (of the attorney-general) concerning such matters so as not to prejudice court proceedings.
“Honestly, the document was not hidden. But for myself, as the communications minister, I did not see nor hear about the document,” he said at a press conference.
On Monday, Najib obtained leave to begin judicial review proceedings to compel the government to execute a supplementary decree issued by the former king allowing him to serve the remainder of his jail term under house arrest.
In a letter submitted to the court by Najib’s lawyer Shafee Abdullah, the comptroller of the Pahang royal household had confirmed the existence of the addendum issued by the former king.
This has led to several quarters accusing the government of keeping the addendum under wraps and calling for the party responsible to be revealed.
Home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail had said his ministry did not receive any addendum or directive allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
Saifuddin said his ministry only received two documents regarding the former prime minister’s case – the minutes of the Federal Territories Pardons Board’s meeting and the official pardons board order reducing his prison sentence and fine.
Neither of these documents mentioned “house arrest”, he said, maintaining that his ministry was not hiding anything.
Earlier today, AG Dusuki Mokhtar and his predecessor Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh declined to comment on queries from reporters regarding the addendum.
Fahmi reiterated that the government’s response to the issue prior to the Court of Appeal’s ruling was based on the legal processes that were happening in court.
“We are subject to the principle of sub judice, so we conceded and complied with that principle while the court process continued,” he said.