KUALA LUMPUR — The High Court has rejected Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s attempt to secure home detention, affirming that the legal system does not recognise such an arrangement and that the alleged directive authorising it was not constitutionally valid.
In a comprehensive decision, Judge Alice Loke Yee Ching ruled that the Titah Adendum relied upon by Najib lacked legal standing because it was never formally deliberated or approved by the Pardons Board, as required under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.
Najib had sought judicial review to compel the government to enforce the directive, claiming it granted him the right to serve the remainder of his prison sentence at home. However, the court held that such a directive could not stand when it did not go through the proper constitutional channels.
Judge Alice noted that the defence attempted to rely on Section 43 of the Prisons Act 1995 and Regulation 111 of the Prisons Regulations 2000, suggesting they provided a mechanism akin to home detention via “release on licence.” The court rejected this interpretation, clarifying that the provisions merely empower the Director-General of Prisons to exercise administrative discretion for conditional release, not to re-write the nature of a court-imposed custodial sentence.
She emphasised that any such release remains subject to strict oversight, allowing authorities to impose conditions and recall inmates to custody whenever necessary. Consequently, it cannot be equated to or substituted for a permanent transfer of imprisonment location.
The court also highlighted that Najib’s claim that the directive amounted to a “respite” was unfounded. There was no demonstration of urgency or exceptional humanitarian grounds warranting bypassing the Pardons Board, she said.
If sentence reduction was legitimately deliberated in the Pardons Board meeting, there was no justification for excluding home confinement discussions from the proceedings. The court cautioned that accepting directives outside constitutional procedures would encourage arbitrary governance and undermine institutional integrity.
Judge Alice underscored that Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy operates under a strict framework, where the King’s mercy powers must be exercised within lawful structures rather than independent of them. Thus, the Titah Adendum could not be enforced, and no mandamus could be issued against the government.
The ruling clarifies one of the most debated legal controversies of recent months. It firmly establishes that home detention is not part of Malaysia’s penal system, and any deviation from established imprisonment protocols must be grounded in legitimate statutory authority and constitutional procedures.
With this ruling, Najib remains required to continue serving his sentence at Kajang Prison. The decision is expected to shape future legal discourse regarding executive discretion, royal prerogative, and procedural governance, while also marking a defining moment in the country’s legal handling of high-profile criminal cases.