KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — The national palace declared Saturday that the sovereign’s decision permitting jailed former prime minister Najib Razak to complete his sentence under house arrest is unambiguous and must be obeyed, cautioning that any challenge to the order would constitute defiance of the king’s authority.
The palace statement followed a day after the attorney general temporarily blocked Najib’s transfer from prison to house arrest, saying further legal clarification was required.
Najib departed the prison on Friday after his political party paid a 50 million‑ringgit (≈ $12.3 million) fine required by a royal pardon that would allow him to serve the balance of his graft conviction at home. However, he was returned to custody just hours later following an intervention by the attorney general.
Najib has been behind bars since August 2022, when Malaysia’s highest court upheld his conviction in the first graft trial stemming from the multibillion‑dollar embezzlement of the state investment fund 1MDB. In September, the king granted Najib clemency, permitting him to serve the remainder of his term under house arrest provided the court‑imposed fine is paid.
The palace affirmed that all conditions of Najib’s conditional pardon have been met and that the sovereign’s prerogative to pardon must be upheld. It stressed that there should be no ambiguity in interpreting the pardon and that prolonged uncertainty over its execution should be avoided.
“The conditional pardon order is clear, explicit and unambiguous, and it is unrelated to any other proceedings against him,” the palace statement said.
“Given that all conditions of the conditional pardon have been satisfied, any attempt to challenge the order would be tantamount to disobeying the king’s command,” it added.
There was no immediate response from the attorney‑general’s office.
The house arrest covers only the reduced six‑year term from the first trial. It does not apply to a separate 15‑year prison sentence handed down in December 2025 for corruption and money‑laundering in the second 1MDB‑related case, which Najib is contesting on appeal.
The attorney‑general’s office pointed to legal ambiguities in the house‑arrest order and expressed concern about its interaction with Najib’s consecutive 15‑year term. The delay, it clarified, is not an attempt to overturn the royal pardon but to ensure the order is applied correctly and in accordance with the law.
Najib established the 1MDB development fund soon after he took office in 2009. Investigators allege that at least $4.5 billion was misappropriated from the fund and laundered by Najib’s associates through a complex web of bank accounts in the United States and elsewhere.
He was originally sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined 210 million ringgit (≈ $51.5 million) in 2020 for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money‑laundering involving 42 million ringgit (≈ $10.3 million) taken from SRC International, a former unit of 1MDB.
In January 2024, the Pardons Board cut his sentence in half to six years and lowered his fine to 50 million ringgit.
King Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar subsequently issued a conditional pardon to Najib, enabling him to serve house arrest until Aug. 23 2028, contingent on payment of the fine. Should Najib’s appeal in the second case fail, he could face an additional 15‑year term after his current sentence concludes.
Widespread public anger over the 1MDB affair contributed to the ruling coalition’s historic loss in the 2018 general election; the coalition had governed Malaysia since its independence from Britain in 1957. Even after his conviction, Najib remains influential within his party, the United Malays National Organisation, which now forms part of the new government that assumed power in 2022.
Also Read
- Pakistan’s Latest Market and Economic Snapshot: November Performance Overview
- New Zealand’s Election Too Close to Call as Vote Count Reveals Deadlocked Race
- France’s mounting debt burden and political stalemate spark fresh warnings
- Brazilian Lawyer Convicted of Racism for Demanding Jewish Exclusion from Legal Institute Leadership

