SENIOR lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla has raised constitutional and legal concerns following the High Court’s oral decision this morning on Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s bid related to a purported royal addendum for house arrest, urging that a full assessment should only be made after the written judgment is released.
Haniff said it was crucial to be fair to the factual and legal background of the case, noting that this was the first time in Malaysian history that an alleged titah adendum—a royal directive said to have been issued outside the Pardons Board meeting in 2024—had surfaced and been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
“This is the first time the court has been called upon to evaluate the validity of such a titah, which was not issued as part of a Pardons Board meeting,” he said following the court’s decision.
He stressed that, regardless of the circumstances, the power of pardon remains a royal prerogative under the Federal Constitution.
By finding that the alleged addendum did not comply with Article 42—on the basis that it was neither discussed nor decided at a Pardons Board meeting—the court, he argued, had indirectly questioned a long line of constitutional interpretations and case law since Merdeka.
According to Haniff, previous authorities have held that procedural irregularities within the Pardons Board process, including the absence of certain members such as the Attorney General, do not invalidate a royal pardon.
“In effect, this decision appears to call into question the authority and dignity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s prerogative powers, particularly in matters of pardon,” he said.
This morning, former prime minister Najib suffered a legal setback as the High Court dismissed his application to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest, compelling him to continue his incarceration at Kajang Prison.
High Court judge Alice Loke Yee Ching ruled that the add-on order, previously issued by the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong to permit Najib’s house arrest, is invalid and cannot be implemented.
The decision underscores that Najib must complete the remaining duration of his sentence in prison, reaffirming the court’s stance on the enforceability of custodial sentences. The ruling also highlights the legal limitations surrounding any royal directives aimed at altering the conditions of imprisonment.
Haniff also took issue with remarks attributed to the court in its oral ruling, as reported by the media, suggesting that the Prisons Department was the sole authority empowered to issue an order for house arrest.
He said such an interpretation could be seen as subordinating the royal prerogative of mercy to the authority of another institution.
“Is that a correct constitutional interpretation?” he asked, adding that the issue warranted deeper legal examination.
He emphasised that all parties should await the full written grounds of judgment before drawing definitive conclusions, noting that Najib retains the right to appeal.
Haniff further highlighted the scope of Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which provides that the power of pardon includes granting a pardon, remitting, suspending, or “relieving” a sentence.
He questioned whether the court had adequately addressed the constitutional meaning of “relieving” a punishment.
“The Constitution is not drafted without purpose. Every word has meaning,” he said, arguing that serving a sentence under house arrest could reasonably fall within the category of relieving a punishment.
“In my view, transferring the execution of a custodial sentence from prison to home detention can constitute a lawful form of relief,” he added.
Haniff reiterated that a comprehensive legal analysis could only be undertaken once the written judgment is available, and expressed confidence that Najib’s lawyers would rely on appropriate constitutional provisions in advancing their arguments at the appellate stage. – December 22, 2025
