- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,404
- 0
- 6
The Kuala Lumpur High Court rejected Monday former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak’s bid to serve the remainder of his graft sentence under house arrest.
The case centered on the validity of a supplementary order issued by former king Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah. The order allowed Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest, rather than in Kajang Prison.
The king issued the order claiming discretionary power under Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution. However, High Court Judge Alice Loke Yee Ching held that the order was invalid, ruling that the king’s discretionary power must be exercised “judiciously and for the public good.”
Article 42(1) grants the king power to pardon, reprieve, and respite any offenses committed in the Federal Territories after consulting with a Pardons Board. Najib, however, argued that the three elements under Article 42(1) provide the king with separate clemency powers. In particular, he claimed that the supplementary order operated as a respite, 0ver which the king had full discretion and did not need to consult with the Pardons Board.
The court observed that the king decided only on the reduction of the imprisonment term and fine during the board meeting and that the board did not advise on the house arrest. Accordingly, it found that the supplementary order was not made in accordance with the Article 42 procedure. The court further emphasized that although clemency is a royal prerogative, it must be exercised within the bounds of the constitution.
Noting that the house arrest is a novel order in the exercise of clemency powers, the authoring judge held that it is “more imperative that a proposed house arrest order be deliberated” at the board’s meeting.
In 2020, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of RM210 million ($51.6 million) in the 1MDB corruption case. After failing to overturn the decision at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, he requested clemency from the pardons board.
The board reduced Najib’s sentence to 6 years and the fine to RM50 million ($12.3 million). The king then issued the supplementary order independent from the board, allowing Najib to serve the reduced sentence under house arrest.
Najib subsequently commenced judicial review proceedings against the government in the High Court, seeking an order to compel enforcement of the house arrest order. He failed to produce the original document of the order, and the high court initially rejected his application on the ground of the hearsay rule. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Najib’s application to present fresh evidence on the addendum and remitted the case back to the High Court.
Shortly after the latest decision, Najib’s lawyer informed about his intention to appeal the High Court’s dismissal.
The case stands as a landmark in shifting Malaysian constitutional law regarding judicial oversight of royal power. A line of previous cases have held that royal prerogatives are immune from judicial scrutiny.
The post Former Malaysia PM loses bid to serve sentence under house arrest appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The case centered on the validity of a supplementary order issued by former king Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah. The order allowed Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest, rather than in Kajang Prison.
The king issued the order claiming discretionary power under Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution. However, High Court Judge Alice Loke Yee Ching held that the order was invalid, ruling that the king’s discretionary power must be exercised “judiciously and for the public good.”
Article 42(1) grants the king power to pardon, reprieve, and respite any offenses committed in the Federal Territories after consulting with a Pardons Board. Najib, however, argued that the three elements under Article 42(1) provide the king with separate clemency powers. In particular, he claimed that the supplementary order operated as a respite, 0ver which the king had full discretion and did not need to consult with the Pardons Board.
The court observed that the king decided only on the reduction of the imprisonment term and fine during the board meeting and that the board did not advise on the house arrest. Accordingly, it found that the supplementary order was not made in accordance with the Article 42 procedure. The court further emphasized that although clemency is a royal prerogative, it must be exercised within the bounds of the constitution.
Noting that the house arrest is a novel order in the exercise of clemency powers, the authoring judge held that it is “more imperative that a proposed house arrest order be deliberated” at the board’s meeting.
In 2020, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of RM210 million ($51.6 million) in the 1MDB corruption case. After failing to overturn the decision at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, he requested clemency from the pardons board.
The board reduced Najib’s sentence to 6 years and the fine to RM50 million ($12.3 million). The king then issued the supplementary order independent from the board, allowing Najib to serve the reduced sentence under house arrest.
Najib subsequently commenced judicial review proceedings against the government in the High Court, seeking an order to compel enforcement of the house arrest order. He failed to produce the original document of the order, and the high court initially rejected his application on the ground of the hearsay rule. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Najib’s application to present fresh evidence on the addendum and remitted the case back to the High Court.
Shortly after the latest decision, Najib’s lawyer informed about his intention to appeal the High Court’s dismissal.
The case stands as a landmark in shifting Malaysian constitutional law regarding judicial oversight of royal power. A line of previous cases have held that royal prerogatives are immune from judicial scrutiny.
The post Former Malaysia PM loses bid to serve sentence under house arrest appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.