LETTER | When Anwar can be pardoned, why not Najib?

LETTER | The decision to defer former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s latest pardon application to a future meeting of the Pardons Board has understandably attracted considerable public attention.

Over the past few days, voices within the opposition have warned that any pardon for Najib would undermine public confidence and the rule of law.

I respect the right of every party to express its views. However, I believe Malaysians are entitled to ask a simple and legitimate question:

If Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim could receive a full royal pardon in 2018, why should the possibility of a pardon for Najib be treated as a threat to the rule of law?

Anwar was convicted in the late 1990s of corruption-related offences and sodomy-related offences.

His first sodomy conviction was subsequently overturned by the Federal Court in 2004.

In a separate case arising from allegations dating back to 2008, he was convicted of sodomy by the Court of Appeal in 2014, and the Federal Court upheld the five-year sentence in February 2015.

Anwar had consistently maintained that the prosecutions were politically motivated.

On 16 May 2018, following the 14th general election, Anwar was granted a full royal pardon and released from prison.

Najib, meanwhile, was convicted in the SRC International case involving seven offences, including abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering.

The Federal Court upheld his conviction and sentence in 2022.

Why the double standards?

I am not suggesting that the two cases were factually identical. They were not.

My question is one of constitutional principle: if the constitutional mechanism of pardon exists, why should it be considered unacceptable when it is applied to Najib but acceptable when it was applied to Anwar?

The issue before us should not be whether we personally support or oppose Najib. The issue is whether Malaysia's constitutional system allows a convicted person to seek clemency through the established constitutional process.

And the answer is clearly yes.

Article 42 of the Federal Constitution provides the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the constitutional power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites, and to remit, suspend or commute sentences in matters falling within the Federal Territories.

The constitutional framework also provides for the Pardons Board and its advice.

Therefore, seeking a pardon is not the same as overturning a court conviction. A pardon does not mean that the courts did not perform their constitutional function.

It is a separate constitutional mechanism that exists precisely because the law recognises that there may be circumstances in which clemency can be considered after judicial proceedings have concluded.

Najib has already received a partial reduction of his sentence through the Pardons Board process in 2024. His latest application is now to be considered at a future meeting of the board.

We should therefore allow the constitutional process to take its course without turning the exercise of the pardon process itself into a political or constitutional crisis.

Never forget Najib’s contributions

Najib's contribution to Malaysia should also not be erased

Whatever one's views about the SRC International and 1MDB cases, it would be unfair to suggest that Najib's entire administration should be judged solely through the lens of his conviction.

During his tenure as prime minister, the BN government implemented major transformation programmes, infrastructure projects and targeted assistance initiatives that had tangible effects on Malaysians.

These include:

- Government Transformation Programme (GTP)

- Economic Transformation Programme (ETP)

- BR1M, providing direct assistance to eligible lower-income households

- MRT Sungai Buloh-Kajang Line and major public transport expansion

- rural infrastructure and development programmes

- scholarships and higher education initiatives

- Cabinet Committee on Indian Participation (CCIC)

- Socio-Economic Development of the Indian Community (Sedic)

- Malaysian Indian Blueprint (MIB)

- initiatives involving Tamil schools and Indian community education

- Tun Razak Exchange (TRX)

- Malaysia Vision Valley

- Transformasi Nasional 2050 (TN50)

For the Indian Malaysian community in particular, the MIB represented a significant attempt by the federal government to systematically address long-standing issues involving education, economic participation, employment, entrepreneurship and social development.

Some policies and projects initiated during the Najib administration were subsequently continued, expanded or modified by later governments.

This does not erase the seriousness of the convictions against Najib, nor should it. But neither should his contributions to the country simply be erased because of his conviction.

Is this about the rule of law or political considerations?

This is the question Malaysians should honestly ask.

If the argument is that a pardon for a convicted person automatically destroys public confidence in the rule of law, then we must explain why the same principle did not prevent Anwar from receiving a pardon in 2018.

If the constitutional pardon mechanism was legitimate then, it remains legitimate now.

If there are legal or constitutional grounds to oppose Najib's application, those grounds should be clearly explained.

But merely arguing that his pardon would be politically inconvenient, unpopular or damaging to a particular political coalition cannot be allowed to replace the constitutional process.

A resurgent BN

There is also an undeniable political reality.

BN has been rebuilding its strength. Najib remains a figure with significant political influence among BN supporters. His release could potentially strengthen BN's political position.

That may be a political consideration, but it should not determine the exercise of a constitutional power.

The question should therefore not be: “Will Najib's release strengthen BN?”

The question should be: “What does the Constitution provide, and should the constitutional process be applied consistently?”

I believe the answer is clear.

The king and the Pardons Board should be allowed to exercise their constitutional responsibilities without political pressure.

If the constitutional process permits clemency to be considered, then Najib should be entitled to have his application considered on its merits, just as Anwar was.

Ultimately, respecting the rule of law also means respecting the Constitution in its entirety - including the constitutional mechanism of mercy and pardon.

Writer is the communication chief for the People’s Progressive Party.

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

SNAPSHOT | Anwar, Putin discuss expanding economic ties; Rosmah disappointed with Najib's pardon hearing deferment

Zahid 'saddened' by Najib's pardon hearing postponement

UMNO AGM | Zahid says unaware if more charges coming over TH; Umno 'hoping for the best' with Najib pardon

YOURSAY | Najib has done nothing to deserve pardon