The group says respect for the constitutional role of the king does not mean the government, or the public, should be expected to remain silent on questions of legality, transparency and justice.
In a statement, the group said Article 42(9) of the Federal Constitution provides that the FTPB shall consider the written opinion of the AG, while Article 40(1A) states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong must act on the advice of the FTPB.
G25 questioned what legal advice had been given to the FTPB as Justice Alice Loke held in a recent High Court case involving Najib that a house arrest order was incapable of execution as there was no legal provision for such a mechanism in Malaysia.
“The public should be provided with the written opinion of the AG and the representation of the federal territories minister Hannah Yeoh. It should be made clear whether the decision to grant house arrest was consistent with the written advice of the AG and the representation made by the minister.
“If so, the public should be told. If not, the public is equally entitled to know. There is a need to clearly explain what has changed in the law, or what legal authority now exists, to form the basis of the FTPB’s decision to order the house arrest,” it said.
G25 also called for the FTPB to revisit the decision at its earliest possible meeting with a view of rescinding it.
Najib, 73, was granted a conditional pardon by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, after Friday’s FTPB meeting, allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028, subject to payment of a RM50 million fine and other conditions.
The king presides over meetings of the board, which comprises the attorney-general, the federal territories minister, and three members appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
G25 stressed that if house arrest is to become part of Malaysia’s criminal justice system, it should be governed by clear and generally applicable laws and criteria, rather than “appearing to have been created” for the benefit of one particular individual.
It also pointed out that legal experts have said the decision appears to be an “unprecedented use of house arrest” as a form of royal clemency in Malaysia.
G25 said the government’s response to calls for transparency would be crucial in demonstrating its commitment to the rule of law, institutional reform and restoring public confidence.
It added that failure to respond to such calls may give the public room to assume that there are no justifiable reasons for the decision to allow Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
“Respect for the constitutional role of the king does not mean that the government, or the public, should be expected to remain silent on questions of legality, transparency and justice to the citizens,” it said.
“Malaysia is a constitutional democracy, and our citizens deserve to be treated as informed and responsible participants in that democracy. There should not be any insult to the intelligence of the citizens. We deserve to be treated with dignity.”
G25 added that the decision had further undermined public confidence in the criminal justice system and raised questions about equal treatment under the law.
“The public is entitled to ask a simple question: would the same treatment be available to an ordinary prisoner convicted of comparable offences? If the answer is no, the government must explain what principle of equal justice justifies the distinction,” G25 said.
Najib was imprisoned in August 2022 after the Federal Court upheld his conviction for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving RM42 million belonging to SRC International, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.
He had been serving a reduced six-year prison sentence at Kajang prison after the FTPB halved his original 12-year sentence in February 2024. The initial RM210 million fine was also reduced to RM50 million. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.