PETALING JAYA: The attempt by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to obtain an urgent court ruling is no reason to keep Datuk Seri Najib Razak in Kajang Prison, says lawyer Kitson Foong.
He said the AGC was right to take legal questions to court but only a court could stay or change the High Court’s order for house arrest.
“Who decides where Najib sleeps tonight? Not the Attorney General. Until and unless a court does so, that order should be carried out,” he said.
The AGC said on Friday that Najib’s house arrest should be put on hold and that he remain at his existing place of detention pending clarification.
On Saturday, the AGC said it was not disputing the pardon but wanted an urgent court ruling on whether the discharge order meant Najib’s jail sentence in the SRC International case had ended, and if so, whether his 15-year jail sentence in the 1MDB case, which was to commence after completing the SRC International case sentence, should begin.
It said a clearer court ruling would also protect Najib’s rights in the event the sentence had actually ended.
Foong said this was a fair point but it did not justify keeping Najib in Kajang Prison because he was still a prisoner either way, as his Jalan Langgak Duta home had been gazetted as a prison as of Friday.
“Nothing is lost by complying. A prisoner who is moved between two prisons can always be moved back,” he said.
“But days spent in Kajang Prison that the court order did not call for cannot be given back.”
He said the answer was plain as the order discharging Najib also stated that he would serve the remaining sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028.
“In my opinion, a court that knows Najib was given both jail and a fine would not wipe out the jail term with a fine receipt,” he said.
Foong said the pardon likewise allowed Najib to serve the “remainder of his sentence” at home.
“One cannot serve the ‘remainder’ of a sentence that has already ended,” he added.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said AG Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar sat on the Pardons Board that decided on Najib’s pardon and also heads the 1MDB prosecution team.
“He already knew about the 1MDB case sentence since Sept 26, before the Pardons Board met.
“Whatever questions arise on the effect of the pardon, he should have studied them at that time,” he said.
Haniff also pointed to Mohd Dusuki’s remarks on Nov 1, when he told reporters that Najib would stay in prison as long as the fine remained unpaid.
“Why didn’t you say then that even if Najib paid the RM50mil, you would need to study it after?
“To me, this is not about Najib Razak – this is an issue of the rule of law,” he said.
Istana Negara said on Saturday that the pardon was clear and not linked to any other case and that with all its conditions fulfilled, disputing it verged on defying the King’s decree.
The AGC, in its statement, denied that the Attorney General had exceeded his authority or caused Najib to be unlawfully detained.
