Malaysia’s government says that a proposed law that would allow house arrest for some offenses is not intended to benefit imprisoned former Prime Minister Najib Razak, saying its purpose is to reduce prison overcrowding and promote “restorative justice.”
On Friday, Fahmi Fadzil, the minister of communications and government spokesperson, was asked by reporters whether the law could allow house arrest for Najib, who is currently serving a prison sentence corruption linked to the multibillion-dollar 1MDB scandal.
“This has nothing to do with any individual,” Fahmi said, as per Reuters. “We need to adapt to the times as we see many other countries embracing restorative justice, and we too are headed that way.”
He said that the proposed change was rather part of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s package of criminal justice reforms, which also included the abolition of the mandatory death penalty in 2023. He said that Malaysian prisons are overcrowded, with 87,000 prisoners currently in a system designed for 74,000.
The minister’s comments came a day after Najib publicly apologized for his mishandling of the multibillion-dollar 1MDB corruption scandal, expressing “regret” at what happened on his watch but maintaining his innocence.
In 2020, a court found Najib guilty of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering for illegally receiving around $10 million from SRC International, a former unit of 1MDB. In August 2022, Najib lost his final appeal in the case and began a 12-year sentence at Kajang prison in Selangor.
He has since pursued every legal and political option available in order to secure his release. In January, he received a royal pardon that halved his sentence. Najib’s legal team are now pushing for their client to serve the remainder of his term under house arrest. They filed an application to this effect in April, claiming the existence of an unpublished addendum to the royal pardon that was granted to Najib on January 29, which would allow the former leader to finish his sentence “under condition of home arrest.”
In July, the High Court rejected the petition, saying that there was no evidence of such an order, but Najib has vowed to continue his campaign for legal vindication. “Being held legally responsible for things I did not initiate or knowingly enable is unfair to me,” the former PM wrote in his statement of apology, “and I hope and pray that the judicial process will, in the end, prove my innocence.”
Naturally, the timing of the house arrest bill, the news of which first arose on October 18 when Anwar presented the national budget for 2025, has raised questions. While the law is arguably necessary – unlike many countries, one legal expert told BenarNews, Malaysia currently lacks legal provisions for home detention – critical observers of Malaysian politics have too much experience with these sort of coincidences to take the government’s word at face value.
Indeed, rumors of Najib’s release date back to the general election of November 2022, when Najib’s United Malays National Organization (UMNO) joined Anwar’s Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition, formerly its bitter rival. That rose questions of possible quid pro quos. Anwar nominated UMNO President Zahid Hamidi as deputy prime minister, despite the fact that he faced more than 40 charges of corruption. Less than a year later, Zahid Hamidi was acquitted on all charges. Many believed that Najib’s release was now simply a matter of time.
With UMNO continuing to emphasize the need for Najib’s release – the issue was front and center at the party’s annual General Assembly in August – Anwar is increasingly torn between his own pledges to fight corruption and the need to maintain the support of a key member of his coalition.
As with the royal pardon that Najib received in January, house arrest may be a means of splitting the difference: placating UMNO to keep Anwar’s coalition together, while avoiding the outrage that would ensue should the former premier be released altogether. Whether Anwar’s supporters, let alone his critics, would see the logic in such a tradeoff remains an open question.