Malaysia Oversight

Court to rule on Najib’s house arrest judicial review appeal on August 13

By MalayMail in August 7, 2025 – Reading time 2 minute
email


KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 7 — The Federal Court will decide on August 13 whether the attorney general (AG) can challenge the leave granted to Datuk Seri to seek judicial review over a royal decree for his house arrest.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan confirmed the ruling date yesterday, Free Malaysia Today reported.

A three-judge panel chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Hashim previously postponed its decision on July 9 after hearing arguments from Shamsul and Najib’s lawyer, Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah.

Justices Datuk Zabariah Yusof and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah also sat on the panel during the hearing.

The AG is seeking to overturn a 2-1 Court of Appeal decision delivered on January 6 that allowed Najib to introduce new evidence and granted him leave to initiate a judicial review.

Najib is asking the government to implement an addendum order allegedly issued on January 29, 2024, by the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, which would allow him to serve his remaining jail sentence under house arrest.

He reportedly became aware of the order shortly after the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced in early February last year that his jail sentence for the SRC International case had been halved and his fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million.

Najib filed the judicial review leave application in April last year, supported by affidavits from president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, who said they had seen the order on Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Aziz’s phone.

The High Court dismissed the application in July 2023, but Najib appealed, and his son Nizar later submitted an affidavit the claimed Comptroller of the Pahang royal household Datuk Ahmad Khirrizal Ab Rahman had authenticated.

On July 2, AG Tan Sri Dusuki Mokhtar acknowledged the existence of the addendum but questioned its authenticity and legal standing, prompting Shafee to argue that the case could have proceeded to the High Court had the AG made that concession earlier.



Source link