Is Govt Totally Blameless In Najib S Slashed Sentence

---

 


Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is reported to have said “I respect the decision of the then king” and “the king, after listening to the Pardons Board, finally decided to reduce the sentence (of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak)”.
Such a statement is allegedly construed as the government’s stratagem in evading responsibility. Some lawyers argue the responsibility for pardon lies squarely upon the federal government and not the king, who as a constitutional monarchy only acts upon advice tendered to him.
Under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, Anwar’s cabinet is duly represented by a federal territories minister, and the government is equally represented by the attorney-general (AG) and three other appointed members.
Any lingering doubt about whether the government has a role to play in the process of obtaining Najib’s partial pardon from the Pardons Board is finally laid to rest when Lokman Noor Adam - a member of the Umno supreme council - categorically revealed that “We would like to thank the prime minister because by right, Najib’s pardon petition can only be heard by the Pardons Board after going through one-third of his sentence.”
Lokman also said: “But due to efforts by the president (Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) and raised by the prime minister, Najib’s petition was heard ‘early’ by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong”.
Because of Lokman’s aforementioned statement, the involvement of the prime minister and his deputy could now be taken as fait accompli.
The involvement of the prime minister and his deputy - as per the statement of Lokman - is not only touching the raw nerve but it is also a black eye for the Madani government.
Jumping the queue
There seems to be a subtle attempt to treat Lokman’s statement as pure hogwash but in my view, he was right, at least on this one.
He was right when he claimed that Najib’s hearing for pardon was fast-tracked. By right, Najib’s pardon petition could only be heard by the Pardons Board after he has undertaken at least one-third of his sentence.
That has been the normal practice, which can be said to be part of our constitutional conventions.
Former prime minister Najib Abdul RazakNajib had apparently jumped the queue and a reasonable conclusion is that it was possible due to an alleged “assistance” by the prime minister and his deputy. This would be interpreted as being unfair to other prisoners who had been waiting for years before submitting their applications.
Therefore, the people have every right to raise this question: “Why was Najib’s case prioritised for consideration when many other inmates are waiting for a chance to be pardoned?” Article 8 of our Federal Constitution entrenches the principle of equality before the law, after all.
Bersih has rightly remarked that the country cannot give a message that politicians who commit offences and are found guilty for it can take “shortcuts” to escape punishment, as though there are two sets of laws for the layperson and the elite.
Another important criterion for a convict like Najib was that he was not entitled to have his application heard as he has other pending criminal cases in court.
As rightly pointed out by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, the whole idea of pardons is that the convict must show evidence of remorse.
When Najib’s daughter clearly stated that Najib and his family always maintain that he has never been guilty, the former prime minister’s remorse would be highly questionable.
To sum up, Bridget Welsh has also rightly pointed out that the damage of this unfortunate fiasco goes well beyond individuals, as the partial pardon may weaken political institutions and expose the government's weaknesses. - Mkini
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is former Sepang MP and former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---