Malaysian MPs Blocked from Observing Najib Razak’s House Arrest Judicial Review

In a significant development in Malaysia’s ongoing legal saga involving former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Attorney General has opposed an application by three opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to act as observers in Najib’s judicial review proceedings concerning his bid for house arrest. The decision, detailed in an affidavit by Attorney General Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, underscores the contentious nature of Najib’s case and raises questions about transparency and political involvement in judicial processes.

The three MPs—Opposition leader Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin, Parti Pribumi Bersatu vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Ronald Kiandee, and PAS vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar—filed their application on 22 January 2025. They sought permission to observe the proceedings and appoint lawyers, including prominent figures such as Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun, PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan, and Zulkifli Nordin, to argue on their behalf during the hearings. However, the Attorney General has firmly rejected their request, arguing that “watching brief lawyers” are limited to observation and have no right to speak or present arguments in court.

“This judicial review application is confined to the matters outlined in the affidavit filed under Order 53 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012,” Dusuki stated in his affidavit. “Other issues, including those raised in parliamentary debates, are irrelevant to this process. If constitutional questions arise, Najib’s legal counsel is fully capable of addressing them without the intervention of the applicants.”

Najib’s Legal Battle

Najib Razak, once Malaysia’s most powerful politician, has been at the centre of legal scrutiny since his conviction in 2020 related to the 1MDB financial scandal, one of the largest corruption cases in global history. He is currently serving a prison sentence at Kajang Prison, but his latest judicial review application, filed on 1 April 2024, seeks to verify the existence of an alleged royal addendum order dated 29 January 2024. If confirmed, Najib argues, this order should mandate his transfer from prison to house arrest at his Kuala Lumpur residence for the remainder of his sentence.

The case has taken numerous twists and turns. Initially dismissed by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 4 July 2024 due to hearsay in supporting affidavits, Najib successfully appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal. On 6 January 2025, the case was remitted to the High Court for a full hearing on its merits, with a case management session scheduled for 11 March 2025 before a deputy registrar. Najib’s application names several high-profile respondents, including the Home Minister, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Attorney General, and the Federal Territories Pardons Board, among others.

At the heart of Najib’s plea is a mandamus order—a legal directive compelling a public authority to perform a specific act. He has requested that the respondents confirm the existence of the addendum order and, if it exists, execute it immediately to facilitate his house arrest. The opacity surrounding this alleged royal order has fuelled speculation about political interference and the role of Malaysia’s monarchy in judicial matters, though no evidence has been presented to substantiate such claims.

Opposition’s Bid for Involvement: A Political Statement?

The opposition MPs’ application to participate as observers is widely seen as a political manoeuvre, reflecting the deep divisions within Malaysia’s political landscape over Najib’s fate. Najib, a prominent figure in the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), remains a polarising figure—viewed by some as a victim of political persecution and by others as the architect of systemic corruption during his tenure as prime minister from 2009 to 2018.

The Attorney General’s rejection of the MPs’ request also touches on a separate but related issue: a government application for a gag order to prohibit public discussion of the case’s details. Dusuki clarified that the MPs are not parties to this gag order application and thus have no standing to challenge it. “The merits of the gag order are not an issue to be determined in their request to be observers,” he noted, further limiting the scope of their involvement.

This stance has drawn criticism from opposition quarters, with some arguing that it restricts parliamentary oversight of a case with significant public interest. However, legal experts suggest that the Attorney General’s position aligns with procedural norms, as judicial reviews typically do not accommodate third-party interventions unless directly relevant to the case’s merits.

Broader Implications for Malaysia’s Judiciary and Politics

Najib’s case is more than a personal legal battle; it is a litmus test for Malaysia’s judicial independence and the government’s commitment to combating corruption. The 1MDB scandal, which saw billions of dollars allegedly misappropriated from the state investment fund, has left a lasting stain on Malaysia’s international reputation. Najib’s conviction was hailed as a landmark victory for accountability, but his persistent legal challenges—including this bid for house arrest—have kept the controversy alive.

If the alleged royal addendum order exists and is enforced, it could set a precedent for how high-profile convicts are treated, potentially undermining public trust in the justice system. Critics argue that allowing Najib to serve his sentence under house arrest could be perceived as leniency, especially given the scale of the 1MDB scandal. Conversely, Najib’s supporters contend that his age—71 years old—and health concerns justify a more humane arrangement, though such claims remain speculative without official medical documentation.

The opposition MPs’ attempt to intervene also highlights the intersection of politics and law in Malaysia. The involvement of figures like Hamzah Zainudin, a key opposition leader, and representatives from Parti Pribumi Bersatu and PAS, suggests a coordinated effort to politicise the judicial process. This raises questions about whether their application is genuinely rooted in a desire for transparency or serves as a platform to rally public support against the current administration.

Legal and Cultural Context for Global Readers

For international audiences unfamiliar with Malaysia’s legal system, a judicial review is a process whereby courts examine the lawfulness of a decision or action by a public body. In Najib’s case, the review centres on whether the government and related authorities have acted appropriately regarding the alleged royal order for house arrest. The concept of a “watching brief,” as requested by the MPs, allows third parties to monitor proceedings without active participation—a common practice in cases of public interest but strictly regulated to prevent interference.

Malaysia’s political culture also plays a significant role in this saga. The country operates as a constitutional monarchy, with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) holding symbolic and, in some instances, discretionary powers, including the ability to grant pardons or influence sentencing conditions through royal decrees. The alleged addendum order, if real, would fall within this framework, though its existence remains unconfirmed at this stage.

Additionally, the involvement of opposition parties reflects Malaysia’s fractious political environment, where coalitions and rivalries often spill over into legal and public spheres. The opposition’s push to observe Najib’s case may be interpreted as an attempt to keep pressure on the government, which has faced criticism for its handling of corruption cases since taking power after the 2018 general election.

What Lies Ahead?

As the case progresses towards its next hearing in March 2025, all eyes will be on the High Court’s handling of Najib’s judicial review. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Najib but also for how Malaysia navigates the delicate balance between judicial autonomy and political influence. If the court confirms the existence of the royal addendum order, it may trigger a broader debate about the role of the monarchy in legal matters—a sensitive topic in a country where the royal institution is deeply revered.

For now, the Attorney General’s opposition to the MPs’ application reinforces the boundaries of judicial proceedings, ensuring that the focus remains on Najib’s legal arguments rather than external political agendas. However, the opposition’s persistence suggests that this issue will continue to resonate beyond the courtroom, shaping public discourse in the lead-up to future elections.

In a nation still grappling with the aftermath of the 1MDB scandal, Najib Razak’s case remains a symbol of Malaysia’s struggle for accountability and reform. Whether he remains in Kajang Prison or secures house arrest, the resolution of this judicial review will likely leave a lasting imprint on the country’s political and legal landscape.