KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia’s attorney-general on Saturday (Nov 7) stood by his decision to seek legal clarifications over a royal order allowing imprisoned former Prime Minister Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest, and rejected accusations of treason after the palace insisted it must be implemented.
The dispute marks a rare public clash between the national palace and the government’s top legal office over the implementation of a royal decree.
The attorney general on Friday temporarily blocked Najib’s transfer from prison to house arrest, saying more legal clarification was needed.
But the palace Saturday issued a public rebuke, saying King Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar’s prerogative of pardon for Najib that allowed the house arrest was clear and must be respected, as all conditions have been fulfilled. It warned any attempts to challenge it would amount to defying the royal command.
Najib had left the prison Friday, after his political party paid a RM50 million (US$12.3 million) fine required to enable the house arrest order to be carried out. But he was brought back to prison hours later following the attorney-general’s intervention.
Najib has been imprisoned since August 2022, when Malaysia’s top court upheld his conviction in his first graft trial linked to the multibillion-dollar looting of state investment fund 1MDB. Malaysia’s king in September granted Najib clemency, allowing him to serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest once he pays the court-imposed fine.
The house arrest applies only to his reduced six-year sentence in the first trial. It does not cover a separate 15-year prison sentence imposed in December 2025 for corruption and money laundering in a second major trial tied to the 1MDB scandal. He’s appealing that sentence.
The attorney-general’s office Saturday defended its handling of the house arrest order, stressing it was not disputing or defying the royal pardon.
It said court clarification was needed on the effect of the high court’s discharge order Friday after the fine was paid. It said the key question was whether the discharge order meant Najib had completed his first sentence or still had time left to serve, as this would determine when his second sentence begins.
It reiterated the judicial clarification was necessary to ensure that the decree and existing court rulings were implemented according to the law. Allegations that the move was an insult and treason against the king were baseless, it said.
“Seeking legal certainty through the courts is a responsible step toward upholding the integrity of the administration of justice,” it added in a statement.
The standoff is unusual in Malaysia, where the king serves as head of state under a constitutional monarchy while the elected government runs the country and the courts interpret its laws.
