In a statement today, the AGC said such attempts were “wholly inappropriate” and called on all parties to respect the appeal process undertaken by the former prime minister.
The AGC rejected claims that the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision to dismiss Najib’s judicial review application over an alleged addendum had diminished the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay rulers, or governors in matters concerning pardon.
The AGC said such assertions made by Najib’s lawyer were “entirely untrue” and did not reflect the actual reasons given by the High Court. The AGC also stressed that it remained committed to defending the royal institution and upholding the Federal Constitution.
It explained that in dismissing Najib’s judicial review application, the court emphasised that the power of pardon is a prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, which is guaranteed under Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution.
“However, Article 42 of the Federal Constitution also provides that in exercising this prerogative, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay rulers, and governors shall act in consultation with the pardons board when deciding on an application for pardon.”
“The addendum order was not deliberated or decided at the 61st Federal Territories Pardons Board (FTPB) meeting, which only discussed Najib’s application for a full pardon, and the reduction of his prison term and fine.
“Accordingly, the learned judge (Justice Alice Loke) held that the additional decree on house arrest was not made pursuant to Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, as the matter was neither discussed at the meeting nor decided by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the same meeting.”
The AGC said this clearly showed that the court’s decision did not in any way diminish the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay rulers, and governors in granting a pardon to an offender.
The AGC said that on the contrary, Loke’s oral judgment expressly recognised the prerogative powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay rulers, and governors, stressing that the power of pardon could not be exercised by any other party.
“Nevertheless, in line with the concept of a constitutional monarchy, this power of pardon must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional requirements as stipulated under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution,” the AGC said.
“The High Court’s decision has clearly and comprehensively explained the manner in which the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Malay rulers, and governors are exercised in deciding a pardon, thereby strengthening and affirming the authority of the royal institution, particularly in matters relating to applications for pardon.”
Najib, 72, was convicted of misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International Sdn Bhd funds and has been serving his sentence at Kajang prison since Aug 23, 2022.
In 2024, the FTPB halved his prison term from 12 years to six and reduced his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.
A judicial review was filed last year seeking to compel the government to execute the addendum, or supplementary decree, to place him under house arrest.
Convene special Conference of Rulers session
Umno Veterans has called on the Conference of Rulers to convene a special session to examine the implications of the High Court’s decision to ensure that it is aligned with the “spirit, history, and foundational structure” of the nation.
In a statement, the group said the call was not meant to challenge the courts, but rather, to preserve the dignity and sovereignty of the royal institution.
Umno Veterans said the Malay rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong have special and sovereign constitutional powers which served as a balance in Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy system.
It said the Malay rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong have certain discretionary powers guaranteed by the constitution – which is derived from the sovereignty of the royal institution itself.
“Any interpretation that diminishes this position has the potential to disrupt the doctrine of separation of powers and undermine the balance between the executive, legislative, judicial, and royal institutions,” it said.