7-3-2024 (KUALA LUMPUR) The recent partial pardon granted to former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has ignited a firestorm of debate, casting a spotlight on the delicate interplay between justice, mercy, and public confidence in the nation’s institutions. This hallmark event, stemming from the multi-billion-dollar 1MDB scandal that shook the country and the financial world, has the potential to redefine how Malaysians perceive the systems that govern their society.
For years, the prevailing sentiment among Malaysians was that institutions were heavily politicised by the government of the day, a belief that has gradually eroded in recent times as a decoupling of institutions and politics has taken shape. However, Najib’s partial pardon, which halved his 12-year jail sentence and significantly reduced the fines imposed upon him, has reignited discussions surrounding the integrity and accountability of these crucial pillars of governance.
The decision has sparked a polarising response, with Najib’s ardent supporters deeming the partial pardon insufficient, while others express concerns about a potential backsliding on the government’s commitment to tackling corruption. Amidst this maelstrom of opinions, the implications for public trust in institutions such as the Pardons Board, the courts, and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) demand careful examination.
The Pardons Board, a pivotal entity entrusted with the delicate balance between justice and mercy, finds itself at the epicentre of this debate. Many have called for greater accountability and transparency in the board’s decisions, including the release of reasoning and justifications, a demand that was left unfulfilled in the case of Najib’s partial pardon. Legal experts have also raised concerns over the perceived conflict of interest inherent in the attorney-general’s role within the Pardons Board, as they must advise on granting mercy to individuals their institution has pursued for conviction.
This development has fueled apprehensions that the lines between justice and mercy may become increasingly blurred. Calls for greater accountability from the Pardons Board could inadvertently shift the burdens of justice onto an institution intended for mercy. Conversely, treating pardons as a norm rather than an exception risks diluting the purpose of both the Pardons Board and the courts, potentially setting a precedent that emboldens politicians embroiled in legal cases to pursue similar avenues after exhausting criminal appeals.
Nonetheless, any push for enhanced transparency is likely to face constraints due to the deference accorded to the King, who heads the Pardons Board, and his reserved discretion. This delicate balance between accountability and reverence for the monarchy underscores the multifaceted challenges at play.
In contrast, the credibility of the courts has emerged relatively unscathed from this saga, a testament to the institution’s hard-won reputation for dispensing impartial justice. The majority of Malaysians who believed the Federal Court’s decision to sentence Najib to prison was correct after a comprehensive appeals process are likely to maintain their faith in the court’s wisdom to adjudicate future cases judiciously.
Under the esteemed leadership of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the Malaysian judicial system has undergone a remarkable transformation, recovering from the inglorious 1988 constitutional crisis and the 2007 Lingam tape scandal, which cast doubt on judges’ credibility and allegations of judicial promotions being fixed. High-profile cases like Najib’s sentencing – the first instance of a former prime minister being jailed in Malaysia – have substantially altered public opinion for the better, demonstrating the court’s unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law, irrespective of the accused’s political standing or affiliation.
Moreover, the courts’ impartial treatment of politicians from various parties, exemplified by Najib’s acquittal in a separate 1MDB-related audit tampering case and the exonerations of United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) party president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and secretary-general Ahmad Maslan in unrelated cases, lends credence to the notion that judgments are rendered based on individual merits, rather than extraneous factors.
While the courts’ credibility has been painstakingly earned through years of resolute adjudication, lingering concerns may arise regarding the finality of appeals court decisions involving politicians, particularly in the wake of Najib’s partial pardon. Nevertheless, the public’s confidence in the judiciary’s independence and impartiality remains largely intact, a testament to the institution’s resilience and commitment to upholding the principles of justice.
However, the AGC’s perceived independence in corruption cases continues to face challenges, even without the implications of Najib’s pardon. The attorney-general’s position, appointed by the prime minister of the day, inherently invites scrutiny and criticism, particularly when charges are dropped or discharges not amounting to acquittals are granted to high-profile politicians, regardless of the merits underpinning such decisions.
The absolute discretion vested in the AG to initiate, continue, or discontinue prosecutions, coupled with the courts’ inability to insist otherwise in the absence of compelling reasons, has further fueled skepticism surrounding the AGC’s autonomy. Despite the recent appointment of Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh as the new AG, he bears the formidable burden of prosecuting corruption cases without fear or favour, a challenge exemplified by the recent charges against former finance minister Daim Zainuddin for failing to disclose assets as part of a probe into individuals named in the leaked Pandora Papers.
The perception of bias in political cases is an enduring challenge, even when prosecutions are pursued purely on merit and devoid of political interference. UMNO politicians charged a few years ago decried a political witch-hunt by the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, while the same accusations have resurfaced with probes into Dr Mahathir’s close associates and children.
Najib’s pardon, while unlikely to directly impact the AGC’s standing, has reignited discussions surrounding Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s proposal to separate the AG’s dual role as chief legal adviser and lead criminal prosecutor. Such a move could bolster public confidence by ensuring that prosecutions are undertaken in the interest of justice and society, unencumbered by allegiance to the government of the day, even when targeting senior officials.
As the reverberations of Najib’s partial pardon continue to echo through the corridors of power, the prospect of his pursuit for a full pardon looms large, a development that could once again put Malaysia’s institutions to the ultimate test. His lawyer’s assertions that Najib is considering filing a new pardon request, coupled with the former prime minister’s consistent denials of wrongdoing, have set the stage for a potential showdown that could either further erode or reinforce public trust in these vital pillars of governance.
Should Najib succeed in securing a full pardon, public trust would undoubtedly plummet to unprecedented depths, casting a pall of doubt over the nation’s commitment to accountability and transparency. Conversely, a rejection of his pardon request could ironically bolster public confidence, though the extent of this confidence boost may vary across institutions, reflecting the nuanced perceptions and expectations that Malaysians harbour towards these entities.
