MELAKA: The Home Ministry is leaving it to the courts to resolve conflicting interpretations of the law concerning the implementation of house arrest for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Its minister, Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, said the issue concerned the use of the term ‘Order of Discharge’ in a court order, as opposed to the Pardons Board’s decision, which he said stipulated that Najib serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
He said the ministry had never disputed the Pardons Board’s decision but required legal clarification to ensure that any action taken complied with the proper procedures and fell within the relevant authorities’ jurisdiction.
“If there are two interpretations, the court is the best platform to resolve them. The ministry will abide by and respect that process.
“The only matter we need to resolve now is whether there is a need to clarify these two differing interpretations first.
“As for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decree, nobody is questioning that,” he told reporters after attending an engagement session with fishermen at the Sungai Lereh Fishermen’s Jetty in Klebang here today.
Also present was Malaysian Fisheries Development Authority chairman Muhammad Faiz Fadzil.
On Friday, Umno confirmed that the RM50 million fine imposed on Najib had been paid at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, paving the way for the implementation of house arrest under the terms of the conditional pardon granted to him.
However, the implementation of house arrest was put on hold after the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced that it wanted to conduct further clarification on the interpretation of the Conditional Pardon Order and the implications of the High Court’s Order of Discharge issued after the fine was paid.
Following this, Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar sought an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to explain his position on compliance with the royal decree concerning Najib’s Conditional Pardon Order.
Saifuddin said the confusion arose from the use of the term ‘Order of Discharge’, which meant release, whereas the implementation of house arrest required the Prisons Department to retain authority over the prisoner.
He said that if the order was interpreted as a full discharge, the Prisons Department would no longer have jurisdiction over Najib.
However, if the Pardons Board’s decision were implemented in the form of house arrest, the residence concerned would have to be gazetted to enable Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under the supervision of the Prisons Department.
“House arrest is one thing, discharge is another. So, from our position, which one should we follow? These are legal documents and legal terms. Our country has laws, and if there is any confusion, we refer the matter to the court,” he said.
Saifuddin said the ministry was taking a cautious approach as any misinterpretation of the order could have legal implications, including the possibility of wrongful detention.
“Imagine if the court rules that it is a discharge, meaning the Prisons Department must release Datuk Seri Najib, but instead we send him to house arrest. That could amount to wrongful detention.
“For now, let the court decide, as there are differing interpretations,” he said.