COMMENT | Najib's conditional pardon must be respected by all

COMMENT | At last, the news that Najib Abdul Razak’s family, supporters, and much of the Umno grassroots have been waiting for has arrived.

Today, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, granted the former prime minister a conditional pardon.

Najib will be allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028, subject to the payment of a RM50 million fine and other conditions.

Naturally, Najib’s family will feel the greatest sense of relief. Umno and those who have spent years campaigning for its former president also have reason to celebrate.

There is no point pretending that Najib has somehow lost his political significance within Umno. His fate has remained alive within the party for years, raised in speeches, meetings and assemblies, and it continues to be one of the issues capable of uniting a large section of the party’s base.

So, congratulations to those who have fought for this outcome. Today, they have received part of what they have long asked for.

What say you, reformers?

However, a more interesting question now arises. What about those who have spent years speaking most loudly about the rule of law, respect for institutions, judicial independence and the dangers of political interference?

For years, Malaysians were told that institutions must be respected and their decisions accepted even when we do not like the outcome. That principle is sound. The problem usually begins when the result no longer suits one’s own political preference. Suddenly, what appeared very clear yesterday becomes complicated today, new contexts are discovered, and the same process is viewed with suspicion.

If there was political interference, show where it happened. The power of pardon was not created today specifically for Najib.

Article 42 of the Federal Constitution has long existed, and the Pardons Board did not suddenly appear after lunch because a former prime minister happened to file an application.

For offences committed in the federal territories, the power of pardon exists within the country’s established constitutional framework.

Anyone is free to disagree with today’s decision, question whether it was appropriate or ask what it means for public confidence in justice. Those are legitimate questions.

But if the claim is that the process itself was compromised, that allegation should be supported by evidence.

Hold your horses, Umno!

At the same time, Najib’s supporters should not celebrate so enthusiastically that history itself gets rewritten. A conditional pardon does not mean the Federal Court changed its decision.

Najib was convicted in the SRC International case, and all seven convictions were upheld by the Federal Court in 2022.

The pardon changes how the remainder of the sentence is served. It does not erase the court’s judgment.

If people are expected to respect the decision of the Pardons Board today, then the judicial record must also be respected.

One institution cannot be treated as sacred because its decision is convenient while another is quietly pushed aside because its decision is not.

Najib can be both a former prime minister who introduced policies and development still appreciated by some, and a former premier who was convicted by a court of law. Those two realities can exist at the same time.

Many still remember the cash aid - BR1M, major infrastructure projects, public transport expansion and other programmes introduced during his nine years in office.

Others view his legacy through SRC International, 1MDB and broader questions of governance. There is no need to erase one part of the record in order to defend the other.

Malaysian politics has always had a tendency to turn everything into black and white. If we like someone, everything that person did must be good.

If we dislike someone, everything that person ever did must suddenly become worthless. That is why today’s decision tells us almost as much about those reacting to it as it does about Najib himself.

Those who have spent years speaking about institutions now have to show that the principle still applies when the outcome does not suit them.

Those celebrating Najib’s pardon should remember the same standard when, one day, institutions make decisions they themselves dislike.

Let’s be honest

There is no need to roll around on the streets. There is also no need to pretend Najib has just been cleared of every allegation ever made against him.

He has received a conditional pardon affecting the remainder of his SRC International sentence. That is the accurate position.

His legal troubles are not over either. In the separate 1MDB case, the High Court last December convicted him on four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering involving RM2.3 billion.

Najib is challenging that decision through the appeal process, so that case has not reached its final conclusion.

The courts perform a judicial function. The Pardons Board exercises a power provided for under the Federal Constitution. Both exist within the same constitutional system and do not need to be turned into opposing institutions.

If people want to debate whether house arrest should be available to a former prime minister, debate it. If they want to ask what this means for prisoners without powerful names or political influence, ask that too.

If they want to question whether special treatment for prominent figures affects perceptions of equality before the law, that is also fair. However, the principle should not change simply because the name involved makes us angry or happy.

For most Malaysians, today’s decision will not directly change life tomorrow morning. Food prices will not fall because Najib is under house arrest. Salaries will not rise. Rent and car instalments still have to be paid.

For families worrying about groceries, school expenses, debt and jobs, whether Najib is in Kajang or at home will not add RM200 to their bank account.

Let’s have a calm debate

That does not mean the decision is unimportant.

How a country deals with a former prime minister who has been convicted of a criminal offence affects public confidence in institutions, justice and the belief that state power should be exercised consistently.

That is why the decision deserves open and calm debate. Najib’s supporters can see it as a measure of relief after a long political struggle.

His critics can continue questioning whether such treatment should be available to a powerful political figure. Both positions are legitimate.

What is not legitimate is changing the standard depending on the name, the party or who benefits.

If we want institutional decisions to be respected today, we must be prepared to respect the same institutions when the next decision goes against us.

If we want to speak about compassion, we should not forget justice. If we want to speak about justice, we should not pretend that the constitutional power of pardon does not exist.

Najib has received a conditional pardon. His SRC International conviction remains part of the judicial record. Other legal proceedings involving him are still ongoing. That is the reality.

The bigger question now is whether the principles we have spent years repeating are really principles, or simply words we use when they happen to suit our politics.

MAHATHIR MOHD RAIS is a former Federal Territories Bersatu and Perikatan Nasional secretary. He is now a PKR member.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Najib gets house arrest - but how he'll be tracked remains unclear

LIVE | DAP leaders to hold emergency meeting tomorrow following Najib's clemency

COMMENT | Najib again?

Yeoh denies signing Najib's house arrest order, calls document fake