A COALITION of over 60 civil society organisations (CSOs) has demanded that the government disclose the attorney-general’s written opinion to the Pardons Board in relation to Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak’s pardon application.
The CSO Platform for Reform emphasised that the public has a right to this information as the issue is not only about transparency, but also the critical aspect of upholding accountability in the legislative process.
It referred to Article 42(9) of the Federal Constitution which specifies: “Before tendering their advice on any matter a Pardons Board shall consider any written opinion which the Attorney General may have delivered thereon.”
“Article 42(9) illustrates the legal recognition of the public's right to access details related to the pardon proceedings indirectly increasing public confidence in the pardon board,” the coalition said.
“Moreover, we believe that the importance of transparency in this regard goes beyond mere procedural compliance,” it added in a statement last night.
“The Pardons Board needs to function as a foundation in instilling the public trust in the pardon mechanism mandated by the constitution.”
Instead, it has indirectly caused the public to have less confidence in the transparency aspect of how “the biggest corruption scandal” in the country was handled, the coalition claimed.
The secretary of the the Pardons Board of the Federal Territories had announced yesterday that the punishment handed to Najib over a graft-related conviction had been reduced.
This decision was made during the board’s meeting on January 29.
The former prime minister’s jail term was halved from twelve years to six, and the fine imposed on him slashed from RM210 million to RM50 million.
The meeting was chaired by the then Yang diPertuan Agong, Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Mustafa Billah Shah, a day before his five-year reign as Malaysia's king ended.
Element of arbitrariness
CSO Platform for Reform described the move as an “unjustified amnesty” which will have profound implications that go beyond its immediate impact on the individuals involved.
“Such an act would do great damage to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and erode the essential elements that underpin a just and stable society.,” it said.
“For example, an unjustified pardon would undermine the rule of law by marking a departure from the principles of accountability and equality before the law.”
It stressed that rule of law depends on consistent and fair application of legal standards to all citizens.
“When an amnesty lacks a clear justification, it introduces an element of arbitrariness, suggesting that certain individuals may be exempted from the consequences of the law without sufficient reason.
“This affects public trust in the justice and integrity of the legal system, creating a sense of injustice among the people,” said the coalition, which was formed to focus on institutional reforms.
It also emphasised that the law should never be double standard as this would continue to “oppress the poor and help the elite.”
The "amnesty” in reducing Najib’s imprisonment by 50% and fine by 76% is a great blow to the Madani government led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as far as transparency and accountability are concerned, the coalition stressed.
Questions will arise on the promises made by the Madani government when it began its administration, it said.
“How can Anwar's government fulfil their promise by creating a clean government and restore the public's confidence in the credibility of their government?” – The Vibes, February 3, 2024
.jpeg)
