Najib’s house arrest ruling: When institutions hold firm – A. Azim Idris

Former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak appears at the Kuala Lumpur High Court regarding the judicial review application on the existence of an addendum order allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence at home. - Bernama pic, December 23, 2025


Najib’s house arrest ruling: When institutions hold firm – A. Azim Idris


The judiciary’s sound reasoning in Najib’s case proves Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy is working as intended


A. Azim Idris
Updated 19 hours ago
24 December, 2025
8:00 AM MYT

WHEN I sat for my driver’s license test many years ago, I answered 49 out of 50 questions correctly. The one I got wrong was deceptively simple: “Who has the power to invalidate your driver’s license?” I confidently ticked “all three”—the Road and Transport Department Director-General, the Prime Minister, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The truth, of course, is that only the Director-General has that authority. That mistake taught me something important: in Malaysia, powers are defined by law, not by assumption, and authority must follow the constitution.

That lesson resonates with the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s recent decision rejecting former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s bid for house arrest.

Justice Datuk Alice Loke Yee Ching ruled that the former Agong’s addendum order was invalid because it did not comply with Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which requires the Pardons Board’s involvement in matters of clemency.

In other words, even the King’s discretion must operate within constitutional boundaries. This is not a dilution of royal authority—it is the essence of constitutional monarchy: the throne and the courts working within the framework of law.

Much noise has followed the ruling. Some DAP politicians celebrated openly, drawing criticism that such triumphalism could backfire, especially after their poor showing in the Sabah polls. Others argue the decision undermines royal prerogative.

But the truth is simpler: the judiciary has spoken, and its reasoning is sound. Najib is currently serving a six-year sentence for misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd. His original 12-year term was halved by the Federal Territories Pardons Board in early 2024.

Yet his legal troubles are far from over. This Friday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court will deliver a verdict in his long-running 1MDB trial, which has stretched over six years. If convicted, Najib faces additional prison time.

If convicted again, he will have the constitutional right to seek a pardon from the Agong—through the Pardons Board. That process could, in fact, shorten his time behind bars. So why the uproar?

The answer lies in perception. Najib’s supporters see the ruling as political, while his critics see it as justice served. Yet both sides miss the deeper point: Malaysia’s institutions are functioning as designed.

The courts are interpreting the law, the monarchy is bound by the constitution, and the political class is reacting as politicians do. But the public must resist being swept up in partisan noise. Trusting the judicial process is not about liking or disliking Najib—it is about respecting the rule of law.

Just as my mistaken exam answer showed that authority is not arbitrary, this case reminds us that Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy is not absolute. It is carefully balanced by the constitution. And when the courts uphold that balance, we should take comfort, not outrage. – December 24, 2025

A. Azim Idris is a News Editor at Scoop.