Evil intentions of Umno, racial and religious bigots

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 

Evil intentions of Umno, racial and religious bigots

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 25, 2025: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has rebutted lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah’s accusation that the High Court decision (denying Najib “1MDB” Razak’s bid for house arrest) weakened the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) and Malay rulers’ powers.

This exposes the evil intentions of Umno and racial and religious bigots whose agenda is to create chaos, undermine the law and Federal Constitution, to threaten national unity and harmony.

Those who continue to support and glorify the corrupt, disgraced and shameless former Umno president and prime minister Najib “1MDB” Razak are using all unethical means for their selfish political agenda, not demi rakyat dan negara (for people and country).

No News Is Bad News reiterates that there is no sane reason, whatsoever, to give any respect to a convicted thief/pencuri.

We celebrate the upholding of justice by the courts demi rakyat dan negara to deny Najib’s bid for “freedom” (read as house arrest/backdoor freedom).

No News Is Bad News reproduces below an article on Facebook (which has not been denied by the AGC):

Supporters Of DAP

Kow Hooi Ikatherine ·sdooetpSnr01626i28hatcc27hf99u1333l5i14fgmif10g9060t12l0hm5m ·

1. AGC’s Response — Ruling Strengthens Royal Pardon Powers

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has publicly rebutted claims by Najib’s lead lawyer that the High Court decision weakened the Yang diPertuan Agong’s and Malay rulers’ powers:

AGC says the lawyer’s claims are “untrue” — the court did not dilute royal prerogative.

The judgment reaffirmed that pardon powers belong to the King, Malay rulers, and governors under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.

But those powers must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional process, meaning the King (or ruler/governor) decides on pardon matters together with the Pardons Board.

Because Najib’s alleged addon house arrest order was never discussed or decided by the Pardons Board, the court found it procedurally invalid — which the AGC argues does not diminish but rather clarifies and strengthens the proper exercise of royal pardon powers.

The AGC also warned against misinterpretations that could incite public unrest and said Najib’s right to appeal should be respected.

Malay Mail

+1

In essence, the AGC’s position is that the ruling did not take away the prerogative power of mercy itself — it reinforced that such power must follow the constitutionally required process.

NST Online

2. Najib’s Lawyer’s Reaction — Claims Power Has Been Curtailed

Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, argued that the decision effectively limited the King’s authority, saying:

The court’s reasoning implies that all decisions related to pardons must be made at a Pardons Board meeting, not solely at the discretion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Shafee suggested the ruling could “open the floodgates” for political interference in pardon decisions and said it has a “huge impact on their powers.”

He urged the Malay rulers and the King to study the judgment closely, arguing it could diminish their ability to exercise their constitutional mercy powers independently.

The Star

What This Means in Practical Terms

Constitutionally, the power to grant pardons remains with the King/rulers/governors, as guaranteed under Article 42.

Procedurally, the High Court’s decision underscores that the constitutional mechanism — involving the Pardons Board — must be followed for any pardon or modification (like house arrest) to be valid.

The dispute between Najib’s lawyers and the AGC highlights the ongoing debate about the scope and limits of royal prerogative, especially how far the King’s discretion extends versus constitutional safeguards against unilateral orders.

Malay Mail,,, Malaysia’s Pardon Process (Article 42, Federal Constitution)

Prerogative of Mercy

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) and the Sultans / governors have the constitutional power to grant pardons, reprieves, or commutations for offences.

This includes reducing sentences, remitting fines, or potentially granting clemency like house arrest (though the latter is not specifically codified).

Mandatory Advice from Pardons Board

Any exercise of this prerogative must be on the advice of the Pardons Board.

The Board typically evaluates:

The nature of the offence

Prison conduct and rehabilitation

Public interest considerations

Board Recommendation

The Pardons Board meets to consider applications.

It issues a formal recommendation to the King, who then decides whether to approve the pardon or modification of the sentence.

King’s Final Decision

The King can accept or reject the Board’s advice.

Importantly, the King cannot unilaterally grant pardons that bypass the Board’s advice without violating Article 42.

Legal Effect

Only when the Board’s recommendation and the King’s approval align does the pardon or sentence modification become legally valid.

Any action taken outside this process (e.g., a “house arrest add-on” not advised by the Board) is legally invalid, which was exactly the issue in Najib’s case.

Why the High Court Focused on This

Najib’s team claimed a “house arrest order” from the King allowed him to serve the remainder of his sentence at home.

The High Court found that:

House arrest was never discussed or approved by the Pardons Board.

No constitutional mechanism exists for a King to impose house arrest independently.

Therefore, the order did not comply with Article 42 and was procedurally invalid.

The AGC emphasized that this decision strengthens the constitutional requirement for the Board’s advice, ensuring prerogative powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily, rather than weakening royal authority.

Takeaway:

The ruling does not limit the King’s or rulers’ pardon powers, but clarifies that all pardon-related decisions must go through the Board. Any “add-on” outside that procedure has no legal effect. Legal Experts’ Views

Procedural correctness emphasized: Lawyers noted that the High Court strictly applied constitutional and statutory rules, highlighting that any mercy or pardon measures must follow the Pardons Board process.

House arrest not codified: Experts said Malaysia currently lacks a clear legal framework for house arrest as an alternative to imprisonment, so Najib’s request was “legally unprecedented.”

Potential appeal path: Legal analysts suggested that Najib could appeal, but warned that overturning the High Court would require demonstrating a substantive error of law or procedure, not just dissatisfaction with the outcome.

Government and Institutional Reactions

Prison and Home Affairs authorities: They confirmed that there is no legal obligation to implement the house arrest order, reinforcing the court’s ruling.

Pardons Board clarity: Officials emphasized that house arrest was never considered or recommended by the Board, affirming the importance of following constitutional procedures for mercy or sentence reductions.

Political Commentary

Opposition voices: Some politicians framed the ruling as reinforcing rule of law, stressing that no individual, regardless of position, is above legal process.

Pro-government voices: Some supporters expressed disappointment, claiming the ruling was “strict but fair,” noting that the legal system adhered to procedure rather than politics.

Public perception: Social media reflected a mix of approval for procedural integrity and criticism of perceived delays in the justice system.

Key Takeaways

House arrest in Malaysia remains unregulated, so any future cases would require new legal mechanisms.

Constitutional and procedural rules are decisive: The High Court stressed that even a King’s “add-on” cannot bypass the Pardons Board.

Appeals are possible, but the likelihood of success is uncertain given the High Court’s clear reasoning. 1. 总检察署回应——裁决强化皇家赦免权

总检察署（AGC）公开驳斥了纳吉首席律师的说法，即高等法院的裁决削弱了最高元首和马来统治者的权力：

总检察署表示，该律师的说法“不实”——法院并未削弱皇家特权。

该判决重申，根据联邦宪法第42条，赦免权属于国王、马来统治者和省长。

但这些权力必须按照宪法程序行使，这意味着国王（或统治者/省长）需与赦免委员会共同决定赦免事宜。

由于纳吉布被指控的额外软禁令从未经过赦免委员会的讨论或决定，法院认定其程序无效——总检察署辩称，这非但没有削弱，反而澄清并加强了皇家赦免权的正确行使。

总检察署还警告不要误解判决，以免引发公众骚乱，并表示应尊重纳吉布的上诉权。

马来邮报

+1

总检察署的立场是，该裁决并未剥夺赦免权本身——而是强调了赦免权必须遵循宪法规定的程序。

NST Online

2. 纳吉律师回应——称权力受限

纳吉的首席律师丹斯里穆罕默德·沙菲·阿卜杜拉辩称，该裁决实际上限制了国王的权力，他表示：

法院的推理意味着所有与赦免相关的决定都必须在赦免委员会会议上做出，而不能仅仅由最高元首自行决定。

沙菲认为，该裁决可能会“打开闸门”，导致政治干预赦免决定，并表示这将“对他们的权力产生巨大影响”。

他敦促马来统治者和国王仔细研究该判决，认为这可能会削弱他们独立行使宪法赋予的赦免权的能力。

《星报》

实际意义

根据宪法第42条，赦免权仍然属于国王/统治者/总督。

从程序上看，高等法院的裁决强调，任何赦免或刑罚调整（例如软禁）都必须遵循宪法机制——即赦免委员会的程序——才能有效。

纳吉布的律师与总检察署之间的争议凸显了关于王室特权范围和界限的持续争论，特别是国王的自由裁量权与宪法对单方面命令的保障措施之间的界限。

《马来邮报》 马来西亚的赦免程序（联邦宪法第42条）

赦免特权

最高元首（国王）和苏丹/总督拥有宪法赋予的赦免、缓刑或减刑的权力。

这包括减刑、免除罚款，或可能给予宽恕，例如居家监禁（尽管后者并未明确编纂成法）。

赦免委员会的强制性建议

行使此项特权必须以赦免委员会的建议为准。

委员会通常会评估：

罪行的性质

狱中表现和改造情况

公共利益考量

委员会建议

赦免委员会召开会议审议申请。

委员会向国王提出正式建议，由国王决定是否批准赦免或修改刑期。

国王的最终决定

国王可以接受或拒绝委员会的建议。

重要的是，国王不能单方面绕过委员会的建议而赦免他人，否则将违反《欧洲人权公约》第42条。

法律效力

只有当委员会的建议与国王的批准一致时，赦免或刑期修改才具有法律效力。

任何未经赦免委员会建议而采取的行动（例如，未经委员会建议的“居家监禁附加令”）均属无效，而这正是纳吉布案件的关键所在。

高等法院为何关注此案

纳吉布的团队声称，国王颁布的“居家监禁令”允许他在家中服完剩余刑期。

高等法院裁定：

赦免委员会从未讨论或批准过居家监禁。

宪法中并无任何机制允许国王独立颁布居家监禁令。

因此，该命令不符合宪法第42条的规定，且程序无效。

总检察署强调，该裁决强化了赦免委员会提供建议的宪法要求，确保特权不会被任意行使，而非削弱王室权威。

要点：

该裁决并未限制国王或统治者的赦免权，而是明确规定所有与赦免相关的决定都必须经由赦免委员会批准。任何在此程序之外的“附加条款”均不具有法律效力。 法律专家观点

强调程序正确性：律师指出，高等法院严格适用宪法和成文法规则，并强调任何赦免或特赦措施都必须遵循赦免委员会的程序。

居家监禁尚未成文：专家表示，马来西亚目前缺乏明确的法律框架将居家监禁作为监禁的替代方案，因此纳吉布的请求“在法律上史无前例”。

可能的上诉途径：法律分析人士认为纳吉布可以上诉，但警告说，推翻高等法院的裁决需要证明存在实质性的法律或程序错误，而不仅仅是对结果不满。

政府和机构的反应

监狱和内政部：他们确认没有法律义务执行居家监禁令，重申了法院的裁决。

赦免委员会澄清：官员强调，委员会从未考虑或建议过软禁，并重申遵循宪法程序进行赦免或减刑的重要性。

政治评论

反对派的声音：一些政治人物认为该裁决强化了法治，强调任何人，无论其地位如何，都不能凌驾于法律程序之上。

支持政府的声音：一些支持者表示失望，声称该裁决“严格但公正”，并指出法律体系遵循的是程序而非政治。

公众舆论：社交媒体上既有对程序公正的赞扬，也有对司法系统延误的批评。

要点总结

马来西亚的软禁制度仍处于监管空白，因此任何未来的案件都需要新的法律机制。

宪法和程序规则至关重要：高等法院强调，即使是国王的“附加”赦免令也不能绕过赦免委员会。

虽然可以上诉，但鉴于高等法院的明确理由，上诉成功的可能性尚不确定。https://www.malaymail.com/.../explained-why-did.../202989...

 

  Enjoy your continuous stay in Kajang Prison where you belong!