Najib’s Home Detention Verdict Day: Supporters Gather Outside Court at Dawn

(Kuala Lumpur, 22nd) Supporters of former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib gathered outside the Kuala Lumpur court as early as dawn, personally following the verdict regarding the legality and implementation of the so-called “additional decree” that allegedly allows him to serve the remainder of his sentence under home detention.

Most people arrived at around 6 am, but the authorities implemented strict security measures. Only close family members and media representatives were allowed to enter the court to attend the hearing this morning.

Najib, due to his involvement in the SRC International case, had his original conviction upheld by the Federal Court in August 2022 and was imprisoned. The court found him guilty of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering, sentencing him to 12 years in prison and a fine of 210 million ringgit. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional prison term.

In February 2024, the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had approved a decision to commute Najib’s sentence, reducing his prison term from 12 years to 6, and reducing his fine from 210 million ringgit to 50 million ringgit. This decision was officially announced and came into effect in accordance with the law.

However, Najib’s camp subsequently claimed that, in addition to the publicly announced commutation decision, the then-King had issued an “additional decree” (Titah Adendum) allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under home detention, rather than continuing imprisonment. This “additional decree”, however, was not included in the Pardons Board’s official written decision, nor was it ever publicly announced. The government and Attorney General’s Chambers had previously stated that they had not received such a document or were unable to confirm its existence.

Due to this controversy, on April 1 last year, Najib’s camp filed for judicial review in court, seeking confirmation of the legality of the “additional decree” and requesting the government to implement the relevant home detention arrangement. This move has drawn widespread public attention, focused on whether the decree truly exists, whether it complies with the Constitution and pardon procedures, and whether it has legal effect in the absence of official public announcement.