Questions arise as Najib’s house arrest sets a national precedent

 Who will bear the cost of turning his house into a prison? Will his family and friends be allowed visits? Can he post selfies while seated at the kitchen table? Or will the same conditions as Kajang prison apply?

A lot of anger has arisen since Najib Razak was returned to Kajang prison (barely 3km from my own residence in Simpang Balak), after Umno paid the RM50 million fine imposed as part of his sentence in the SRC International case.

Some of that anger came from Umno and its Perikatan Nasional supporters, and some from the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

To all and sundry, the royal pardon order was simple enough: once Najib has paid the RM50 million fine, take him back to his Langgak Duta mansion until August 2028, when his sentence in the SRC International case ends.

After that, I presume Najib would then be returned to Kajang prison to serve his 15-year sentence in the 1MDB case and pay his RM11 billion fine. I also assume Umno would then petition for a full pardon, or a partial one with yet another bout of house arrest.

But is this as straightforward as it sounds? There are several issues worth contemplating, as the issue of Najib’s house arrest has set a new precedent. We need to know, and grow from this uncertain prison situation.

My first question is about security. How secure is house arrest, in terms of converting a residence or mansion into a secure facility from an architectural perspective? Does the house need to be renovated with different locks and steel grilles on the windows, so that the prisoner is not able to escape with outside help?

Paying the bill

The more important aspect is: who pays the bill for house repairs and renovation? It is, after all, Najib’s house, and any repairs to it will benefit the owner. The government is only a temporary owner until Najib completes his prison sentence. After that, it is his house once again.

But, of course, he has to go back to Kajang prison in August 2028, unless Umno once again holds the prime minister’s post, as it will make sure of a third or fourth pardon session.

My second question is about visiting arrangements, since the house in Langgak Duta is now gazetted as a prison. As I understand the instructions of the pardons board, without having read the minutes, it calls for just a change of venue.

The question to which all of us are waiting to hear the answer is what the conditions will be at this prison.

Will Najib be able to entertain visits from family members, and Umno or PN members more loosely, and in private so that he can engineer his comeback? Can he access electronic communications to post selfies while eating, reading and exercising lightly, and become the latest YouTube sensation with Bossku 2.0?

Or is Najib subject to the same conditions as he was in Kajang prison?

Who made donations?

A third question about the way donations were made to pay the RM50 million fine. As the amount collected is so large, it sets a precedent of its own: no sane person would believe it came from ordinary members or those sympathising with Najib’s situation.

It has been suggested that certain people were responsible for the “donation” that suddenly materialised in a single day, when no one had even guessed that it could happen. We only heard Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki announce that RM10 million was collected within the first two weeks, and then silence. After that, boom, RM50 million was collected!

There have also been concerns that the donations could be some kind of “investment”, or even kickbacks from Umno cronies. This brings into question the morality of the donation..

Although no law requires a donation drive to be audited, I assume it could be done if someone were to make a police or MACC report. But if none comes forth to lodge any reports, then we need a law that says there can be no hanky-panky in donation drives, in order to have some sense of palatable morality regarding the case.

This situation is a first and thus needs some scrutiny.

A matter of morality

An additional concern is regarding the religious implication of making donations to a convicted felon. From a simple search online, I found that a religious fatwa was made stating that a Muslim can donate to help a clearly convicted felon – with the clear condition that he or she admits to the crime and pronounces repentance in public. Then, and only then, is it permissible to help the prisoner.

Since Najib has not fulfilled the religious condition of repentance, as far as I know, where does that leave this country’s Islamic moral compass?

My final question is for whoever is going to lead this country.

One political party is known for having among its ranks people who have been indicted for corruption – not only several members, but also its highest-ranking member and president himself.

It would be to the advantage of future prime ministers, ministers and officials that the house arrest issue be clarified in a crystal clear manner, because the same leaders holding high office could then use this “facility” should their possible indictment occur under a future government.

I therefore applaud the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the home minister for taking the unpopular stance of caution before setting this new national precedent. After the coming general election, and when GE17 then comes around, there may be a new government in place, and this issue of house arrest may once again be the fate of many more leaders who transgress their oath of office and religious morality.

Alas, as the saying goes, what goes around eventually comes around.- FMT

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