Rules addendum order invalid.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak has failed in his legal attempt to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest. The High Court ruled today that the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s addendum order for house arrest was invalid and unenforceable.
High Court judge Datuk Justice Loke Yee Ching found that the addendum order did not comply with Article 42 of the Federal Constitution. “The addendum order was not deliberated nor decided in the 61st Pardons Board meeting. There was no compliance with Article 42, consequently it is not a valid order,” she said.
The judge stated that the government has “no power and no duty to obey and enforce” the house arrest order, and Najib has “no right” to compel enforcement through the courts.
Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, informed the court that his client would appeal the decision.
Court: Agong’s powers must align with Constitution
In her 50-minute judgment, Justice Loke emphasised that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as a constitutional monarch, must exercise his prerogative of mercy within the framework of the Federal Constitution. She reiterated that the house arrest order was not valid as it failed to meet the requirements of Article 42.
Article 42 grants the Agong the power to issue pardons, reprieves, and respites, but only upon advice from the Pardons Board, which must consider the Attorney General’s written opinion. The Board comprises the Attorney General, the Federal Territories Minister, and three members appointed by the Agong, and must be presided over by the ruler.
The judge noted that the only issue before the court was the validity of the house arrest order. She accepted the minutes of the Pardons Board’s 29 January 2024 meeting as admissible and relevant evidence.
According to the minutes, the then Agong initially proposed a full pardon, which the majority of the Board opposed. The final decision was to reduce Najib’s sentence from 12 to six years and his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million. “There was absolutely no mention of a house arrest,” the judge said.
She concluded that the house arrest order, referred to as a “supplementary order”, was not discussed or advised upon by the Pardons Board. “The obvious conclusion to draw from this is the addendum order was not made following the procedure of Article 42,” she said.
Judge: Agong cannot act independently of Pardons Board
Justice Loke rejected the defence’s argument that the Agong could issue a house arrest order independently as a form of “respite”. She stressed that all exercises of pardon, reprieve, or respite must comply with Article 42 procedures.
She cited the Federal Court’s 13 August 2025 ruling, which affirmed that the Agong’s powers of pardon are subject to constitutional limits. The existence of an addendum order does not render it valid unless it complies with the Constitution.
The judge also dismissed Shafee’s argument that the Agong could act outside the Pardons Board due to urgency. She noted that Najib’s reduced sentence was discussed in the meeting, and there was no reason the house arrest could not have been addressed simultaneously.
“In any event, there is nothing in Article 42 to suggest the Pardons Board meeting can be dispensed with when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong makes an order of respite,” she said.
She described the argument that the Agong could act outside the Pardons Board as a “startling position” that could lead to arbitrary decisions. “To conclude, the contention that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not bound to decide within the Pardons Board meeting is untenable. In the circumstances, premised on my reasoning above, the addendum order is not a valid order made in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy,” she said.
Following the ruling, Shafee requested the judge to expedite the written grounds of judgment to facilitate an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Justice Loke agreed to provide them as soon as possible.