/file/attachments/orphans/najib3212_210213.jpg)
House arrest: What is stopping Najib from using Rosmah's phone?
Published: Sep 26, 2026 7:00 AM
As the government prepares to implement house arrest for former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, questions remain over how prison-like restrictions imposed on him could be practically enforced in a private residence shared with his wife, Rosmah Mansor.
For instance, what is stopping Najib from using Rosmah’s phone? Can the authorities even stop it?
"I think it's important to be candid. The answer, frankly, is no,” senior lawyer Nizam Bashir told Malaysiakini.
"If Najib and Rosmah live together, the authorities cannot realistically monitor every private interaction or guarantee that he never uses her phone. An ankle monitor can help establish whether he remains at the residence; it cannot establish whose phone he is using inside it," he added.
READ MORE: Prison Dept visits Najib's home to assess suitability for house arrest
As the government prepares to implement house arrest for former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak, questions remain over how prison-like restrictions imposed on him could be practically enforced in a private residence shared with his wife, Rosmah Mansor.
For instance, what is stopping Najib from using Rosmah’s phone? Can the authorities even stop it?
"I think it's important to be candid. The answer, frankly, is no,” senior lawyer Nizam Bashir told Malaysiakini.
"If Najib and Rosmah live together, the authorities cannot realistically monitor every private interaction or guarantee that he never uses her phone. An ankle monitor can help establish whether he remains at the residence; it cannot establish whose phone he is using inside it," he added.
READ MORE: Prison Dept visits Najib's home to assess suitability for house arrest
Nizam said the department can set clear conditions for Najib, conduct checks within its lawful powers, investigate suspected breaches and act on proven non-compliance.
"But a condition imposed on Najib does not, by itself, give the authorities unlimited power to monitor Rosmah or control her phone. The department's eventual standard operating procedure should be candid about that practical limit rather than promise perfect enforcement.
"The deeper question is what house detention is intended to mean in practice. Is it to replicate prison restrictions inside a home, or to allow ordinary family life and social contact while imposing clear limits on the person’s liberty?" Nizam asked.
Senior lawyer Kasthuri Krishnan also shared similar sentiments, saying there was a possibility Najib could potentially circumvent restrictions on his use of certain facilities, particularly mobile phones, if he had access to a device belonging to Rosmah.
/file/attachments/orphans/RosmahMansor1_842426.jpg)
"A restriction imposed on Najib also does not automatically prohibit Rosmah from owning or using her own mobile phone," Kasthuri explained.
She said this could only be addressed through measures such as CCTV surveillance in the designated area of the house to monitor his compliance.
Other problematic scenarios and why
The same practical questions could arise when people or goods move in and out of the residence - such as food and commercial deliveries, visits by domestic workers, contractors or medical personnel, access to vehicles, medication and other household items.
The difficulty would be distinguishing between what is intended for Najib and what belongs to, or is being used by, other household members. The same could apply to areas of the residence shared by Najib and other residents.
/file/attachments/orphans/najib23121_480507.png)
The challenge, therefore, is enforcing restrictions on Najib without effectively imposing prison-like conditions on everyone living in the house.
Part of the uncertainty stems from the absence of a specific statutory framework outlining how house arrest for a convicted prisoner should be monitored and enforced.
At present, there’s no actual legislation on house arrest specifically. However, Section 3 of the Prisons Act 1995 does allow the home minister to declare any house, building, enclosure or place, or any part thereof, to be a prison.
Additionally, while Malaysia does have electronic monitoring device (EMD) provisions in its statute books, these are found within preventive detention laws that were not designed for someone in Najib’s position, namely the Prevention of Crime Act and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, as well as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
It is unclear whether these statutes could provide a legal basis for fitting an EMD on someone serving a court-imposed prison sentence at home.
"But a condition imposed on Najib does not, by itself, give the authorities unlimited power to monitor Rosmah or control her phone. The department's eventual standard operating procedure should be candid about that practical limit rather than promise perfect enforcement.
"The deeper question is what house detention is intended to mean in practice. Is it to replicate prison restrictions inside a home, or to allow ordinary family life and social contact while imposing clear limits on the person’s liberty?" Nizam asked.
Senior lawyer Kasthuri Krishnan also shared similar sentiments, saying there was a possibility Najib could potentially circumvent restrictions on his use of certain facilities, particularly mobile phones, if he had access to a device belonging to Rosmah.
"A restriction imposed on Najib also does not automatically prohibit Rosmah from owning or using her own mobile phone," Kasthuri explained.
She said this could only be addressed through measures such as CCTV surveillance in the designated area of the house to monitor his compliance.
Other problematic scenarios and why
The same practical questions could arise when people or goods move in and out of the residence - such as food and commercial deliveries, visits by domestic workers, contractors or medical personnel, access to vehicles, medication and other household items.
The difficulty would be distinguishing between what is intended for Najib and what belongs to, or is being used by, other household members. The same could apply to areas of the residence shared by Najib and other residents.
The challenge, therefore, is enforcing restrictions on Najib without effectively imposing prison-like conditions on everyone living in the house.
Part of the uncertainty stems from the absence of a specific statutory framework outlining how house arrest for a convicted prisoner should be monitored and enforced.
At present, there’s no actual legislation on house arrest specifically. However, Section 3 of the Prisons Act 1995 does allow the home minister to declare any house, building, enclosure or place, or any part thereof, to be a prison.
Additionally, while Malaysia does have electronic monitoring device (EMD) provisions in its statute books, these are found within preventive detention laws that were not designed for someone in Najib’s position, namely the Prevention of Crime Act and the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act, as well as the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
It is unclear whether these statutes could provide a legal basis for fitting an EMD on someone serving a court-imposed prison sentence at home.
READ MORE: Najib gets house arrest - but how he'll be tracked remains unclear
Possible safeguards
Against this backdrop, the lawyers said the house-arrest conditions and accompanying SOP would need to spell out how Najib’s compliance is to be monitored - clearly defining the part of the house subject to prison conditions and setting out the powers of officers to conduct checks and searches within that area.
Visitors and deliveries could also be subject to appropriate controls, while other residents would not automatically be subject to the same restrictions as Najib.
Lawyer Thulasy Suppiah explained that existing provisions under Section 43 of the Prisons Act and Regulation 111 of the Prison Regulations 2000 provide a statutory basis for controlling a prisoner's residence, movement and reporting when there is a release on licence under Section 43.
“Section 43 gives the commissioner-general fairly broad discretion to impose conditions, so an argument could be made that an EMD can form one of those conditions.
"However, neither Section 43 nor Regulation 111 expressly provides for electronic monitoring or the attachment and operation of an EMD," she explained.
Thulasy said the proposed Prisons (Amendment) Bill 2026 could provide a clearer statutory basis for electronic monitoring, but pointed out that this has yet to be passed.
Possible safeguards
Against this backdrop, the lawyers said the house-arrest conditions and accompanying SOP would need to spell out how Najib’s compliance is to be monitored - clearly defining the part of the house subject to prison conditions and setting out the powers of officers to conduct checks and searches within that area.
Visitors and deliveries could also be subject to appropriate controls, while other residents would not automatically be subject to the same restrictions as Najib.
Lawyer Thulasy Suppiah explained that existing provisions under Section 43 of the Prisons Act and Regulation 111 of the Prison Regulations 2000 provide a statutory basis for controlling a prisoner's residence, movement and reporting when there is a release on licence under Section 43.
“Section 43 gives the commissioner-general fairly broad discretion to impose conditions, so an argument could be made that an EMD can form one of those conditions.
"However, neither Section 43 nor Regulation 111 expressly provides for electronic monitoring or the attachment and operation of an EMD," she explained.
Thulasy said the proposed Prisons (Amendment) Bill 2026 could provide a clearer statutory basis for electronic monitoring, but pointed out that this has yet to be passed.
