Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
Is the partial pardon for national thief Najib valid?
C4 calls for reforms to pardons process after decision in Najib’s case
The anti-graft watchdog proposes a minimum waiting period, and restrictions if an appellant is facing similar ongoing charges.
FMT Reporters - 04 Feb 2024, 3:55pm
Update
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism says the decision in Najib Razak’s case must be viewed as a ‘watershed moment for Malaysia’ in reforming the pardons process.
PETALING JAYA: An anti-graft watchdog has urged authorities to consider imposing a minimum waiting period before applications for pardons can be made, following Najib Razak’s commuted sentence in his SRC International case.
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4) said Najib’s case must be viewed as a “watershed moment for Malaysia” in reforming the pardons process.
“Suitable limits should be introduced in order to uphold justice and fairness for all, such as mandatory minimum periods for serving one’s prison sentence before a pardon application may be considered,” it said in a statement.
C4 also proposed restrictions against granting pardons where cases of criminal prosecutions of a similar nature are still pending against the detainee.
It said Malaysia should follow other nations which have sets of guiding principles in determining pardon applications.
It said Canada, for example, has a minimum waiting period to be eligible to apply, and requires evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship arising from the nature of the sentence or conviction.
Under Malaysia’s Prisons Regulations 2000, a prisoner may submit a petition for a royal pardon on his conviction or sentence to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or the state ruler or governor, as the case may be, “as soon as practicable” after his conviction.
Najib had filed an application for a royal pardon on Sept 2, 2022, just days after starting his 12-year jail sentence on Aug 23 in Kajang Prison.
On Friday, the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced that Najib’s prison sentence in the SRC International case has been reduced from 12 years to six and that he will be released on Aug 23, 2028.
His fine was also reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million. However, if he fails to settle the fine, a year will be added to his sentence, which means he will be released on Aug 23, 2029, the board said.
Yesterday, Umno Supreme Council member Lokman Adam told reporters the party is grateful to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for an earlier hearing of Najib’s petition, which resulted in the commuted sentence and fine.
“By right, Najib’s case can only be heard by the Pardons Board after he has served one-third of his sentence,” he said.
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3, 2024: A lawyer has raised the the prospect of invalidity in national thief Najib Abdul Razak’s partial royal pardon.
Lawyer-cum-human rights activist Charles Hector reckoned that as its name suggests, it should be the ‘immediate past’ Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) who held the ultimate power and right – as opposed to the Pardons Board of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya – to publicly make known his decision.
“It should be the Agong and not the Pardons Board that decide and announce … But the Agong never announced his decision which should have been done before his term ended. Why was it delayed? Now, does the new( and 17th) Agong agree (with the partial pardon)?” he penned in his latest blog.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below a Focus news report that was reposted by The Coverage:
The Coverage/News/The Entire Pardon Process Should Start All Over Again : Lawyer Raises Prospect Of Invalidity In Najib’s Partial Royal Pardon
The Entire Pardon Process Should Start All Over Again : Lawyer Raises Prospect Of Invalidity In Najib’s Partial Royal Pardon
3 February, 2024
AS UMNO deems the partial royal pardon of incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak as ‘earth-shatteringly dismal’ till it has to delay its Bumiputera Economic Congress Colloquium scheduled this morning (Feb 3) in lieu of an emergency supreme council meeting at 11am, questions have been raised about validity of the Pardon’s Board decision.
Lawyer-cum-human rights activist Charles Hector reckoned that as its name suggests, it should be the ‘immediate past’ Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) who held the ultimate power and right – as opposed to the Pardons Board of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya – to publicly make known his decision.
“It should be the Agong and not the Pardons Board that decide and announce … But the Agong never announced his decision which should have been done before his term ended. Why was it delayed? Now, does the new Agong agree (with the partial pardon)?” he penned in his latest blog.
“There will be no problem if the Agong announced his decision before his term came to an end. However, he never made any public announcement or proclamation which he would have to since this was the question of pardon of a former prime minister (PM).”.
Given such development, Hector suggested that the entire pardon process or exercise should start all over again.
“Hence, reasonably we may have to start from the beginning with a new petition of appeal with a ‘new’ Pardons Board … Should the new Agong simply accept and just grant pardon to Najib (or deny pardon) even if he was not present (at the Pardons Board meeting on Jan 29) or preside over it?”
Hector further queried quantum of the fine “which interestingly was reduced more than 50%” which came alongside the halving of the former Pekan MP’s jail sentence from 12 years to six years.
“His sentence said he (Najib) has to pay RM210 mil and now the Pardons Board has reduced the amount to RM50 mil. And if he does not pay the RM50 million, only one-year additional jail term for such a sum,” argued the co-founder of NGO Malaysians Against Death Penalty & Torture (MADPET).
“Personally, the fine should never be reduced as the five times the amount involved in the crime committed serves as a deterrent in law (Najib was found guilty of all seven charges related to the misappropriation of RM42 mil of SRC International Sdn Bhd funds).
“Now, for such a criminal, there is a likelihood that there may be many more similar crimes – many of which may never come to court as it is difficult for prosecution to secure sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Source: Focus
No comments:
Post a Comment