The Federal Court will rule on Aug 13 whether the attorney-general (AG) may appeal against leave granted to Najib Razak to pursue judicial review proceedings aimed at enforcing a former king’s house arrest decree.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan confirmed the matter when contacted today.
On July 9, a three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim adjourned the decision after hearing submissions from Shamsul and Najib’s lawyer Shafee Abdullah.
Also on the panel hearing the leave application were Justices Zabariah Yusof and Hanipah Farikullah.
The AG is appealing to set aside a majority 2-1 Court of Appeal ruling handed down on Jan 6 that allowed Najib to adduce new evidence and granted the former prime minister leave to initiate a judicial review.
Najib wants the government to implement an addendum order dated Jan 29, 2024, issued by the then king Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, allowing him to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest.
Najib got wind of the addendum order soon after the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced in early February last year that the jail sentence in the SRC International case had been halved to six years and the fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million.
Najib sought leave for judicial review last April, relying on affidavits filed by Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang menteri besar Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, based on what they claimed to have read on Tengku Zafrul Aziz’s mobile phone.
The application was rejected by the High Court in July last year.
Najib appealed, and his son, Nizar, filed an affidavit just before the Court of Appeal hearing to support his father’s application to adduce fresh evidence, which the appellate court allowed.
Nizar claimed the comptroller of the Sultan of Pahang’s royal household, Ahmad Khirrizal Ab Rahman, had confirmed the existence of the addendum order and verified its authenticity.
On July 2, AG Dusuki Mokhtar had conceded that the addendum order existed but said he was disputing its genuineness and validity.
In reply, Shafee said the merits of the case would have been heard in the High Court had the AG admitted the existence of the addendum.
He said even at the Court of Appeal, the AG did not confirm its existence but finally made a concession in the Federal Court.
