EMBOLDENED by Monday’s (Jan 6) favourable appellant court decision in its “Solidarity with Najib” crusade, the opposition coalition has gone the extra mile to up its ante against the Madani government by leveraging its new-found trump card – former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak who was put behind bars during the Perikatan Nasional (PN) reign.
True to the age-old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, Bersatu supreme council member Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal who had as recent as Feb 3, 2022 branded Najib a kleptocrat for having cheated Malaysians to the tune of RM2.6 bil had suddenly turned a new leaf to be a major Bossku sympathiser/defender.
Yesterday (Jan 7), the Machang MP referred Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail to the Parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 7 last year that the royal addendum for Najib’s house arrest was hearsay.
The PN lawmaker claimed that this is contrary to Monday’s (Jan 6) Court of Appeal’s ruling which allowed Najib to proceed with a judicial review compelling the government to address the addendum.
On Monday (Jan 6), Saifuddin has clarified that the Home Ministry and Prison Department never received the royal addendum granting Najib’s house arrest.
Instead, they were only informed of the decision to halve the jail duration of the 72-year-old former 10-term Pekan MP to six years and reduce his fine to RM50 mil from RM210 mil through a letter dated Feb 2, 2024 from the Legal affairs Bureau pursuant to the Pardons Board meeting on Jan 29, 2024.
DAP’s retaliation
On this merit, Saifuddin contended that it is therefore impossible to enforce the addendum if they never received it.
Notwithstanding this, Wan Fayhsal’s action synchronises with that of PN’s ally PAS which suddenly portrayed villain Najib as a victim deprived of justice while accusing the Madani government of treason by hiding the truth (the existence of the royal addendum).
On the other side of the divide, DAP which has been accused as the mastermind behind all foul political manoeuvres of the Madani government has hit out at PAS president Tan Sri Hadi Awang for falsely accusing DAP of involvement in the royal addendum controversy.
In stating that matters related to pardons are handled by the Pardons Board which excludes DAP representatives, the party’s secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook slammed “power-hungry” PAS of using divisive tactics to undermine Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s administration and destabilise the unity government,
A day earlier, the DAP Socialist Youth (DAPSY) led by its Subang publicity secretary Amirul Amin and DAPSY Damansara head Nurrahim Nasir has lodged a police report at the Sea Park police station against PAS information chief Ahmad Fadhli Shaari with regard to his social media post that was considered insulting to the royal institution.
This is pertaining to the use of “hen” and “monitor lizard” metaphors in the Pasir Mas MP’s poetic prose, “Disangka jantan berkokok nyaring, rupanya ayam betina bertelur sebiji. Disergah biawak, digadai reban” (literally, “Thought to be a rooster crowing loudly but it turned out to be the hen laying a single egg. Startled by a monitor lizard, the (chicken) coop is quickly pawned”).
As the PN coalition is seemingly likely to capitalise on Bossku’s moral victory to raise its political profile, the royal addendum saga is unlikely to fade into oblivion so soon.
While it is not obvious asd yet if Najib is inching a step closer to house arrest until the High Court hears the matter (case management has been set on Jan 13), this take by human rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim is worth pondering:
The question is whether this was tabled at the Pardons Board meeting. Or was it an afterthought? If it was an addendum which was only introduced or emerged after that meeting (on Jan 29, 2024) that approved the remission of sentence, then it would be irregular.
Which may explain the most recent statement from Istana Negara which restates that all matters of pardon should be presented to the Pardons Board. It may hint at the earlier irregularity.
Also, the question of ultra vires arises. Does the power of pardon include the power to decree where the sentence is to be carried out?
We must not be swayed by the term “royal decree”. It can be – and has been – abused politically to influence the masses.
What may be cultural may not necessarily be constitutional. We live in a constitutional monarchy. A so-called “royal decree” still has to be tested alongside the provisions of the Federal Constitution. – Jan 8, 2025
