The Story Nobody Tells You

Malaysia’s legal system has a curious feature. The Malaysian Constitution allows His Majesty the King to grant pardons to convicted criminals. But people do not understand what this actually means.

When two political figures received royal pardons—Anwar Ibrahim in 2018 and Najib Razak in 2024—they received something very different. Understanding why this has been so, is rather illuminating.¹ Article 42 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) power to grant pardons, reprieves, and respites

Let’s talk plainly. The law should treat everyone the same. Yet these two pardons show something peculiar. Not necessarily wrong. Just peculiar. And worth understanding.

Who Are These Men?

Anwar Ibrahim was a senior politician. He was arrested in 1998.  The charges against him were serious: abuse of power and conduct unbecoming. He was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. After a change in government in 2018, he received a royal pardon.² Reuters (2024). “Malaysia’s Anwar defends royal clemency for ex-PM Najib.” Anwar Ibrahim received a full royal pardon in May 2018 following the change of government  This pardon was complete. It “erased” his sentence  from the record—not his conviction (this is a crucial point for a later debate—but hold it in the catacombs of your mind).

Legally speaking, (so we are told) that it was as if “the trial never happened”—I would disagree [but some “experts” repeat this over and over].  Therefore Anwar could return to politics immediately. He is now Prime Minister.³ Channel News Asia (2024). “Malaysia Confirms Royal Pardon for Jailed Former PM Najib Razak.” Anwar Ibrahim’s pardon fully restored his rights and allowed his return to politics, culminating in his appointment as Prime Minister in November 2022

Najib Razak was also a senior politician.⁴ From 1982 to 1986 he was the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Pahang, before holding various cabinet posts throughout the remainder of the 1980s and 1990s, including Defence and Education. In 2004, he became Deputy Prime Minister under Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and replaced him 2009. He led the country for nine years as Prime Minister. In 2020, after he left office, he was convicted in court. The charges were concrete: criminal breach of trust, money laundering, and abuse of power.⁵ Straits Times (2025). “Malaysia’s PM Anwar calls for respect, patience after Najib’s house arrest bid denied.” Najib Razak was convicted in 2020 of criminal breach of trust, money laundering, and abuse of power related to misappropriation from SRC International (1MDB subsidiary)

He was charged for taking money from a state fund called ‘1MDB’. The amount involved was large—around RM42 million.⁶ The Diplomat (2024). “Malaysia Confirms Royal Pardon for Jailed Former PM Najib Razak.” Najib received RM42 million from SRC International.  Najib was initially sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and fined RM210 million. He began serving his jail term in August 2022.

Then something happened.

In early 2024, the Pardons Board announced that Najib’s sentence had been “reduced”. Not erased, but reduced. His twelve-year sentence became six years. His RM210 million fine became RM50 million.⁷ Straits Times (2025). “Malaysia’s PM Anwar calls for respect, patience after Najib’s house arrest bid denied.” On February 2, 2025, the Pardons Board reduced Najib’s 12-year sentence to 6 years and his RM210 million fine to RM50 million

In law, this is called a “partial pardon.” In August 2028, he is poised to leave prison—if he complies with the conditions.

Stop here.

Notice the difference? Complete erasure versus sentence reduction.

That is the first key point.

The Legal Architecture

Malaysia’s Constitution gives the King power to pardon criminals.⁸ Article 42 of the Federal Constitution; Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor  [1988] 1 MLJ 64, which established the constitutional framework for royal pardons

But this power has both express and implied limits. In my opinion, His Majesty the King must follow the advice of the Pardons Board. So the ‘advice’ of the Pardons Board is not a suggestion. It is a requirement. The Board meets, discusses, and “advises”. The King then “complies” and decides. Articles 42 read with Article 40(1A) of the Constitution, set this out clearly.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Almost nobody knows about this. The Pardons Board meetings are secret. The reasons for their decisions are secret. The Official Secrets Act keeps these matters private.⁹ Official Secrets Act 1972 (Malaysia), which restricts disclosure of government and official proceedings, including Pardons Board deliberations  Therefore, the public cannot see why one person receives a complete pardon while another receives a partial reduction.

One question you might ask yourself is: If a politician is a public figure, why should the process of pardoning him over the crime he or she commits, be shrouded in secrecy? What could be the reason? Should the Pardons Board be answerable to the people? How? Should the law be changed on this to make it more transparent?

Consider this: Anwar was convicted of what many called a personal matter between consenting adults.¹⁰ GK Legal (2022). “Will Najib receive a Royal Pardon?” Anwar’s convictions were characterized as personal offences unrelated to misappropriation of public funds, distinguishing his case from Najib’s. See also these facts: On 14 April 1999 Anwar was convicted of abuse of power (corruption-related) and sentenced to six years in prison.
On 8 August 2000 he was convicted of sodomy in relation to his former driver and sentenced to nine years in prison, ordered to run consecutively with the earlier six-year term. In 2004, Malaysia’s highest court (Federal Court) overturned the 2000 sodomy conviction and he was released, but the 1999 abuse‑of‑power conviction remained on his record and continued to bar him from office for a period. Later sodomy conviction (for context) Separate from the period he served under Mahathir, Anwar later faced new sodomy charges from 2008 involving a male aide; he was initially acquitted in 2012 but then convicted on appeal. In February 2015 the Federal Court upheld this second sodomy conviction and confirmed a five-year prison sentence, sending him back to jail. On 16 May 2018, Malaysia’s king, Sultan Muhammad V, granted Anwar a full royal pardon on the advice of the Pardons Board after the Pakatan Harapan coalition’s election victory. Officials and Anwar’s lawyers stated that this was a “full” or “free” pardon that not only freed him from serving the remaining part of the 2015 sodomy sentence but also expunged all his past convictions from his record, including the 1999 abuse‑of‑power conviction and the 2000 sodomy conviction (even though that 2000 sodomy conviction had already been quashed in 2004).[See: https://www.malaysianow.com/news/2020/09/29/lawyer-explains-unprecedented-move-to-revoke-anwars-royal-pardon)

His offence did not involve state money. Najib’s offence involved misappropriating public funds. Massive sums. State coffers. Money that belonged to Malaysian citizens.

Yet Anwar received full erasure. Najib received a partial reduction. Most people assume, “This makes sense.” Actually, pause for a moment.

Does it?

Timing and Circumstances

Timing matters in law. Anwar had served time before his pardon. He had spent months in prison. By the time he received clemency, considerable time had passed. The political climate had shifted. A new government had taken office on the promise of “fighting corruption.”¹¹ Reuters (2024). “Malaysia’s Anwar defends royal clemency for ex-PM Najib.” The 2018 government change emphasized fighting corruption, creating political alignment for Anwar’s pardon  A pardon seemed aligned with that promise—moving forward from old disputes.

Najib, by contrast, was different. He received his reduction after serving less than two years of his sentence.¹² The Diplomat (2024). “Malaysia Confirms Royal Pardon for Jailed Former PM Najib Razak.” Najib had served approximately 17 months when the Pardons Board reduced his sentence  His conviction was recent. His crimes were still fresh in public memory. The 1MDB scandal had shocked the nation. Billions of ringgit had gone missing internationally. Dozens of people faced trials. Yet the former Prime Minister, who oversaw the fund, received his sentence, and had it cut in half, while the investigations continue.¹³ Channel News Asia (2024). “How a royal pardon for jailed former PM Najib could rock Malaysia.” Multiple 1MDB-related trials against Najib continue, including corruption and money laundering charges

Another point: Anwar’s crimes were historical. They occurred in 1998. A generation had passed. By 2018, society had largely moved on. Najib’s crimes were of the 2010s. They were recent history. Still unfolding, in fact, because Najib faced additional corruption charges that were not yet resolved.¹⁴ Straits Times (2025). “Malaysia’s PM Anwar calls for respect, patience after Najib’s house arrest bid denied.” Najib continues to face four corruption charges and 21 money laundering counts involving RM2.2 billion from 1MDB

The Procedural Question

Here is a controversy that troubles many lawyers. When Anwar received his pardon in 2018, an important question hung in the air- unspoken: Did the Pardons Board actually meet to discuss it?

Most citizens say, “We do not know. No one has ever shown us any valid minutes that these proceedings in fact went on.”

But not all harbour this doubt.

Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir claimed the Board never convened.¹⁵ Murray Hunter (2025). “Questions over the legitimacy of PM Anwar’s royal pardon and legal implications.” Former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad claimed the Federal Territories Pardons Board never convened to discuss Anwar’s pardon in May 2018

He suggested the pardon was granted “without proper procedure.” If true, this would mean the Anwar pardon might lack proper legal foundation: but who knows?

Mahathir’s allegation is serious. Yet the matter was never fully tested in court. The government confirmed the pardon was valid: and yet the doubt remains unanswered.

When Najib received his reduction, similar concerns emerged. Najib’s lawyers claimed a “royal addendum” existed—an instruction to allow him to serve his sentence at home. But did the Pardons Board actually approve this? A judge ruled in December 2024 that the board never formally discussed the addendum.¹⁶ Straits Times (2025). “Malaysia’s PM Anwar calls for respect, patience after Najib’s house arrest bid denied.” High Court Justice Alice Loke ruled on December 23, 2024, that the royal addendum order was constitutionally invalid as it was neither deliberated nor decided at the 61st Pardons Board meeting  The court found it “constitutionally invalid.”

Here is the irony: Najib’s attempt to use a shadowy procedure (the addendum) was blocked by the courts. Yet Anwar’s pardon, which faced similar procedural questions, was never challenged in the same way.

Why the difference? Nobody can say. The records are secret- or they have fallen silent.

The Political Dimension

Let us be direct. Anwar’s pardon was popular. His supporters cheered. His opponents grumbled. But his return seemed to many Malaysians like a fresh start. He had been (what was then called) a ‘reform leader’. His imprisonment had been controversial. His release aligned with the new government’s narrative of change.¹⁷ Reuters (2024). “Malaysia’s Anwar defends royal clemency for ex-PM Najib.” Anwar’s return was framed within the new government’s reform agenda following the 2018 change of administration

Najib’s reduction was controversial. Many citizens felt betrayed. Najib’s conviction had restored public faith in the courts.¹⁸ Malaysian Bar Press Release (2022). “A Royal Pardon for Najib Now Would Make a Mockery of the Rule of Law.” The Bar noted that Najib’s conviction had restored public faith in the judiciary and rule of law  It seemed to show that even a Prime Minister could face justice. That seemed important. When his sentence was cut, people asked: “Does the law apply equally? Or do powerful people get special treatment?”

This touches something uncomfortable.

Anwar’s government depended on political support from UMNO, the party Najib led.¹⁹ The Diplomat (2024). “Malaysia Confirms Royal Pardon for Jailed Former PM Najib Razak.” Anwar’s government required political support from UMNO (Najib’s party) to maintain a parliamentary majority  UMNO wanted Najib released or given lighter punishment. The partial pardon satisfied neither camp. Anwar’s reform coalition wanted him fully punished. UMNO wanted him fully freed. The compromise pleased no one—except, perhaps, those who preferred ambiguity.²⁰ Channel News Asia (2024). “How a royal pardon for jailed former PM Najib could rock Malaysia.”

The partial pardon was described as a “compromise” designed to “appease the largest coalitions in Anwar’s unity government.”

Here lies the real controversy: Was the partial pardon a genuine legal decision?

Or was it a political bargain, wearing legal clothes?

Again, because the proceedings are secret, nobody can definitively answer.

This secrecy itself is the problem.

In a democracy, when justice seems arbitrary, trust erodes.

What the Public Should Know

Several facts are worth noting for clarity:

First, royal pardons are legitimate. They exist in many democracies, including Britain.²⁰ Crown Prosecution Service (UK). Royal pardons exist in the British constitutional system under the prerogative of mercy, though rarely used in modern times  They are not inherently wrong.

Second, the difference between a complete pardon and a sentence reduction is enormous—legally and symbolically.²¹ GK Legal (2022). “Will Najib receive a Royal Pardon?”   Some ‘experts’ claim that the legal effect of a complete pardon “completely erases the conviction,” as if the trial never occurred, whereas a “partial pardon” reduces the sentence but “maintains the conviction on record.” My understanding of the law is different: a pardon, whether ‘absolute’ or ‘partial’, does not erase the conviction – that remains on record.  The effect of an order of clemency is only to “remove from the subject of the pardon, ‘all pains penalties and punishments whatsoever that from the said conviction may ensue,’ but not to eliminate the conviction itself”. This legal difference is crucial. ²² Contrast how a member of parliament is ‘disqualified’ as an MP under Article 48(1)(e) with the dicta of R v Forster [1985] QB 115 at 130, per Watkins, May LJJ, Butler-Sloss J, Court of Appeal, UK.  Article 48 of the Federal Constitution: “(1) Subject to … this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if— (e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation … and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon; …”

Third, any secrecy around decisions on pardon breeds suspicion. Even if decisions are made fairly, ‘hidden processes’ appear unfair. This damages public confidence in law.²³ Malaysian Bar Press Release (2022). “A Royal Pardon for Najib Now Would Make a Mockery of the Rule of Law.” Lack of transparency in pardon proceedings undermines public confidence  Lack of transparency in pardon proceedings undermines public confidence in the Malaysian system of law.

Fourth, timing and circumstances matter. A pardon granted quickly after conviction looks different than one granted years later.²⁴ The Diplomat (2024). “Malaysia Confirms Royal Pardon for Jailed Former PM Najib Razak.” Timing and circumstances influence public perception of clemency decisions and their alignment with the rule of law

Fifth, treating similar offences differently raises questions. Not always answerable questions, but reasonable ones.²⁵ Channel News Asia (2024). “How a royal pardon for jailed former PM Najib could rock Malaysia.” Different treatment of similar offences raises legitimate questions about consistency in the application of law

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here is what most Malaysians do not appreciate: the law in Malaysia is clear on paper. All citizens are equal. Justice should be blind. The Constitution protects everyone.

Yet the system has gaps. Pardons are one gap. They are secret. Reasons are withheld. The process is opaque. This creates space for suspicion and gossip.

Is this necessarily corrupt? Not always. But is it just? That is harder to answer.

Compare two scenarios. A humble trader convicted of a minor theft asks for a pardon. He has served three years of a five-year sentence. His request is denied without explanation. A former Prime Minister convicted of large-scale corruption asks for a reduction. He has served less than two years. His request is granted partially, without explanation.

Why the different outcomes? The Pardons Board knows. We do not. That is the problem.

What Should Change?

Some legal scholars argue that pardon decisions should include brief public statements.²⁶ Malaysian Bar Press Release (2022). “A Royal Pardon for Najib Now Would Make a Mockery of the Rule of Law.” Legal scholars have suggested transparency in pardon rationales would strengthen public confidence in the system  Not lengthy explanations—something shorter. Just enough to show that the deliberations were lawfully carried out and that the Board’s reasoning was thoughtful, not arbitrary.

Some propose that very senior figures convicted of major crimes should serve a higher threshold before requesting clemency.²⁷ GK Legal (2022). “Will Najib receive a Royal Pardon?” Legal commentary suggests senior public office holders should meet higher evidentiary thresholds before clemency consideration  Fairness demands it.

Still others suggest that the Pardons Board should include diverse representatives—not just officials.²⁸ Malaysian Bar Press Release (2022). “A Royal Pardon for Najib Now Would Make a Mockery of the Rule of Law.” Suggestions for board composition diversity to improve decision-making quality and perception of fairness  More perspectives might improve decisions.

These are not radical ideas. Many democracies use them.

In Conclusion

Two men received different pardon outcomes. One is now Prime Minister. One remains partly imprisoned. Both cases invite questions. The questions are legitimate. The law allows pardons. But law without transparency invites suspicion.

This is not necessarily an accusation of wrongdoing. It is an observation about the ‘process’.

Democracy depends on the citizens’ faith in justice.

That faith erodes when politics and politicians work invisibly; and when pardon boards deliberate in secret.

Malaysia’s monarchs have traditionally acted within their powers. That does not mean the process cannot improve. Showing reasoning. Following procedure visibly. Treating cases consistently. These would strengthen, not weaken, the system.

The two pardons reveal something important: Malaysian law is designed well on its face.  But its ‘execution’—in silence and darkness—leaves citizens guessing.

That is a problem worth discussing openly.

And that conversation starts with understanding what actually happened.

Now you do.

∞§∞

We thank Azlan Zamhari of MalaysiaKini for the image.

The author thanks Miss KN Geetha, Miss TP Vaani, Miss JN Lheela and Lydia Jaynthi.

@Copyright reserved.

All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com