JOHOR BARU: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (A-GC) was justified in seeking a correction to the court order governing Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s house arrest.
PKR Youth deputy chief Nabil Halimi said the High Court’s latest ruling ensured that the royal pardon was implemented according to its terms.
He said the High Court’s decision to revoke the Nov 6 release order and replace it with a fresh order on Nov 10 vindicated the A-GC’s move.
He said the earlier order had raised legal questions as its wording could be interpreted as granting Najib release from prison, although the royal pardon stipulated that he must serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028.
“The A-GC’s move to seek clarification and correction of the court order was not an act of defying the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decree, but an effort to ensure it was implemented accurately,” he said in a statement today.
Nabil said the conditional pardon, granted on Sept 18 through the 64th Pardons Board meeting, allowed Najib to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, subject to payment of a RM50 million fine and other conditions.
He also dismissed allegations of political interference by the unity government in the A-GC’s decision, saying accusations should not be made without evidence.
Referring to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, who is also Umno information chief, he said her political position did not mean the A-GC had acted on political instructions.
Nabil said Pakatan Harapan respected the royal pardon and the Pardons Board’s decision despite disagreeing, on moral and anti-corruption grounds, with the concession allowing Najib to serve his sentence at home.
He said house arrest did not amount to an acquittal or erase Najib’s criminal conviction in the RM42 million SRC International case.
Najib was also sentenced to 15 years in prison in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) case, which remains subject to appeal.
“The order that was amended concerned the implementation of his sentence, not his criminal conviction.
“His home may now be where he serves his sentence, but his conviction remains unchanged,” he said.