Mercy means mercy, nothing less

 If the king grants mercy on specific terms, it is the government’s duty to facilitate that royal order.

The legal saga involving former prime minister Najib Razak will forever be one of the most controversial chapters in Malaysian history.

Having followed its evolution closely, I have written extensively on its many facets — particularly on issues of procedural fairness and the unprecedented public objections surrounding his royal pardon.

Najib’s ironic legal journey can be summarised as follows.

It is indisputable that the 1MDB and SRC International scandals represent among the most high-profile and fiercely debated legal battles in modern political history.

Observers, commentators, and legal teams have advanced distinct arguments, some asserting that a mistrial or miscarriage of justice occurred. Conversely, proponents of his conviction maintain that the verdict is grounded in overwhelming evidence of abuse of power.

My own perception has long been that Najib was ultimately scammed. Before the 2018 general election, political actors heavily shaped public opinion by claiming Najib had personally stolen the entirety of the 1MDB funds.

Yet the subsequent trials did not proceed on that premise. Had he truly stolen the funds, the entirety of the losses would have been recovered directly from him.

Instead, global recovery efforts spanning multiple jurisdictions suggest he was deceived—notwithstanding that he may have acted irresponsibly in public office and should be held liable.

Recently, many friends, dissatisfied with the royal clemency granted to him, sent me notes, slogans and TikTok videos expressing their unhappiness. In my view, many of these messages bordered on liability under seditious tendency.

One individual asked how the bench would feel if their judgments are tempered with mercy?

My response was simple: “It is the Federal Constitution itself that provides for clemency. The bench has no say in how a sentence is executed or whether a convict is pardoned, provided the rule of law is not breached.”

The Criminal Procedure Code provides that the courts have no obligation to supervise a sentence once it is pronounced. Instead, upon sentencing, the prisoner comes under the custody of the executive branch.

The executive branch has various legal options available to it in law, including parole or house arrest.

On top of that, the Federal Constitution empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to grant mercy. If the king grants mercy on specific terms, it is the government’s duty to facilitate that royal order.

Provisions for pardons, house arrest and parole are common across many Commonwealth jurisdictions.

The problem in Malaysia is that certain individuals and groups selectively disregard the constitution and the principles enshrined in the Rukun Negara.

Unilateral debaters and social media influencers often stir public disharmony, even over legal principles that are well-established across the Commonwealth.

In my view, questioning the king’s constitutional pardon or royal prerogative powers risks falling foul of the Sedition Act if the remarks incite hatred, contempt or disaffection against the rulers and undermine the values enshrined in the Rukun Negara.

It is incumbent upon everyone to uphold the true spirit of pardon—a principle rooted in compassion and justice.

Mercy means mercy, nothing less. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.