Guest Editorial: Declassify Pardons Board minutes: Transparency must prevail over confidentiality

Murray Hunter


Guest Editorial: Declassify Pardons Board minutes: Transparency must prevail over confidentiality

Dr. P Ramasamy
Jan 10, 2025




Is Dr Zaliha’s time at the PMO’s Department quickly running out?


Federal Territories Minister Dr. Zaliha Mustafa, a member of the Pardons Board, recently emphasized that the minutes of the board’s deliberations are confidential.

While confidentiality is generally upheld in such matters, extraordinary circumstances—such as accusations of governmental opacity regarding the alleged royal addendum favoring house arrest for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak—warrant a different approach.

In the face of these allegations, the government has the authority to declassify the minutes in the larger public interest.

The Cabinet, with the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, could initiate this process, ensuring transparency and accountability.

The argument that confidentiality must be maintained unconditionally raises concerns, particularly when public trust in the government’s credibility is at stake.

Even if discussions on the royal addendum took place, there is a possibility that such deliberations might not have been formally minuted or were recorded off the record.

However, this does not absolve the government of its responsibility to address public concerns. If the government is confident in its actions, what is there to hide by invoking confidentiality?

The question then arises: does the credibility and legitimacy of the government outweigh the confidentiality of the Pardons Board minutes?

Dr. Zaliha’s insistence on shielding these deliberations under the guise of confidentiality could be perceived as an attempt to evade scrutiny.

Transparency, in this context, is not just a matter of choice but a necessity to maintain public trust.

Moreover, the revelation of the royal addendum by Najib’s family before the Court of Appeal’s decision raises serious questions.

The letter’s existence, coupled with the court’s decision to grant Najib a full hearing at the High Court, points to potential procedural irregularities. This suggests that key figures in the government might have been aware of the addendum.

If the government does not challenge the existence of the royal addendum, it risks further undermining public confidence.

Dismissing it as a figment of Najib’s imagination is not a defensible position, especially given the evidence of its existence.

In such circumstances, making the Pardons Board’s minutes public might ultimately be a symbolic gesture.

However, the refusal to do so fuels suspicions and questions the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.

Dr. Zaliha’s firm defense of confidentiality raises the question of whether she is acting under instructions from her Madani government superiors.

The public deserves clarity on this issue. By adhering to constitutional and legal procedures, the government has the opportunity to dispel doubts and demonstrate its integrity.

Failure to do so risks further erosion of public trust and confidence in the administration.

In the spirit of transparency and good governance, declassifying the Pardons Board minutes would be a critical step in addressing public concerns and restoring confidence in the justice system.



Prof. Dr. P Ramasamy

Malaysian, 75 years of age. Former professor of political economy UKM. Former Senior Research Fellow, ISEAS. Former Visiting Professor, University Kassel, Germany. Deputy Chief Minister Penang, 2008-2023. Former member of parliament, 2008-2013. Three terms Perai state assemblyman. Former Chairman of Penang Hindu Endowments Board. Involved in peace talks in Aceh and Sri Lanka. International peace consultant. Chairman of political party Urimai.