How royal pardons actually work in Malaysia — and what the 2025 house arrest ruling settled

In December 2025, the Kuala Lumpur High Court decided something no Malaysian court had squarely decided before: whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can grant clemency on his own.

The answer was no.

Justice Alice Loke Yee Ching held that a supplementary order — a "royal addendum" issued by the former Agong, purporting to let Najib Razak serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest — was not made following the procedure in Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and was therefore not a valid order.

The reasoning matters more than the politics: Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. The prerogative of mercy is real, but it operates inside the Constitution, not above it.

1. Who grants pardons, and for what

Article 42(1) splits the power geographically.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong grants pardons, reprieves and respites for:

• All offences tried by court-martial
• All offences committed in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya

A state Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri grants them for all other offences committed in their state.

Article 42(3) handles the awkward cases: where an offence was committed wholly or partly outside Malaysia, across more than one state, or where the location is doubtful, it's treated as committed in the state where it was tried. The three Federal Territories each count as a state for this purpose.

Practical consequence: where you were tried determines whose mercy you're asking for. A conviction in Shah Alam goes to the Sultan of Selangor. A conviction in KL goes to the Agong.

2. The Pardons Board

This is the body most people don't know exists, and it's central.

Article 42(5) — each Pardons Board consists of:

• The Attorney-General of the Federation
• The Chief Minister of the state, or the Federal Territories Minister
• Not more than three other members, appointed by the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri

Article 42(6) — appointed members serve three-year terms, are eligible for reappointment, and may resign at any time.

Article 42(9) — before tendering advice, the Board must consider any written opinion the Attorney-General has delivered.

The Agong chairs meetings of the Federal Territories Pardons Board; state Rulers chair their own.

The key authority is Superintendent of Pudu Prison v Sim Kie Chon [1986] 1 MLJ 494, which established that the Ruler must consult and be advised by the Board and consider the AG's written opinion — while characterising the grant of pardon as a royal prerogative of mercy.

3. What the 2025 ruling decided

The house arrest case turned on a genuine constitutional question, and it's worth understanding the argument on both sides.

Background. On 2 February 2024, the Federal Territories Pardons Board halved Najib's 12-year sentence to six years and reduced his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million, in the SRC International case. It later emerged that the then-Agong, Al-Sultan Abdullah, had also issued a royal addendum for Najib to serve the remainder under house arrest. The AGC confirmed the addendum's existence in July 2025.

Najib's argument. Article 42(1) refers to three distinct powers — pardons, reprieves and respites. His position was that these are separate, and that a respite falls within the Agong's full discretion without requiring Pardons Board consultation.

The court's holding. Justice Loke found the addendum invalid. The Board had deliberated only on reduction of the imprisonment term and the fine; it had not advised on house arrest. The order therefore didn't follow Article 42 procedure.

The judge emphasised that the Agong's discretion must be exercised "judiciously and for the public good," and made a pointed observation: because house arrest is a novel form of clemency, it is more imperative — not less — that it be deliberated at a Board meeting.

The High Court relied on prior Court of Appeal and Federal Court reasoning, including the Federal Court's August 2025 decision allowing Najib to pursue the challenge, which had emphasised that the clemency power is not absolute and must be exercised within Article 42's limits on advice and procedure.

A structural point commentators raised: house arrest isn't among the clemencies listed in Article 42, and under sections 3 and 5 of the Prisons Act 1995, it's the Home Minister who may gazette a place as a prison — not the Pardons Board. That's a separate reason the addendum sat awkwardly, and part of why the government has been considering dedicated house arrest legislation.

Where it stands: Najib is appealing. A fresh pardon petition was reported in March 2026. Istana Negara had stated in January 2025 that any convict seeking pardon or clemency must formally submit to the Pardons Board and will be considered at its next meeting, reminding all parties to respect the Constitution.

4. Full pardon vs partial pardon — a real difference

Two high-profile pardons illustrate this, and the contrast is instructive.

Anwar Ibrahim, May 2018 — a full pardon. Not a sentence reduction; the conviction itself was erased. That's what allowed him to return to elected office without the disqualification that a conviction carries.

Najib Razak, February 2024 — a partial pardon. The 12-year sentence became six; the RM210 million fine became RM50 million. The conviction stands.

Why the difference matters practically:

Article 48(1)(e) disqualifies a person from Parliament for five years following conviction and a sentence of at least a year or a fine of at least RM2,000. A full pardon removes the conviction and with it the disqualification. A sentence reduction doesn't.

Under Article 48(3), the Agong may separately remove a disqualification — but that's a distinct step, taken on the Prime Minister's advice.

So "he got a royal pardon" can mean two very different things, and the distinction is the difference between eligibility for office and not.

5. How to petition

For readers with a family member in prison, this is the part that matters.

Who can file. The prisoner, a family member, or someone else on their behalf — including, in reported practice, a foreign embassy.

Where. To the relevant Pardons Board — federal or state, depending on where the offence was tried.

What to include. Anything relevant. Court judgments can be submitted where relevant, and the Board can make findings on its own from available documents. In practice, petitions typically cover the circumstances of the offence, conduct in prison, health, family circumstances, remorse and rehabilitation.

The honest caveats, because this is where most articles oversell it:

• There is no published test. Malaysian law contains no statutory criteria, procedure or case law setting out how a pardon petition should be assessed.
• There's no timeline. Boards meet infrequently — commonly reported as around once a year, depending on the Ruler's schedule.
• The process isn't transparent. Reasons are not published.
• Judicial review is very limited. The decision on whether to grant clemency has been treated as falling outside ordinary review — though as the 2025 ruling shows, whether the procedure was followed is reviewable.

Academic and professional commentary has repeatedly criticised this opacity. The counter-argument is that mercy is by nature discretionary, and that codifying it would turn a prerogative into an entitlement.

6. Why it matters beyond famous cases

The pardon system isn't only for politicians.

Death row. For prisoners whose sentences weren't commuted under the 2023 reforms and the Federal Court review that concluded in October 2024, clemency is one of the remaining routes. See also: [Malaysia "decriminalised" drugs — but you can still hang for ganja](/p/decriminalise-drugs-weed-ganja-malaysia-legal-dadah-death-penalty)

Long sentences. A pardon petition is available where appeals are exhausted.

Wrongful conviction. Where new evidence emerges after appeal rights are gone, clemency may be the only avenue left.

A historical example: Datuk Mokhtar Hashim, a former Culture, Youth and Sports Minister sentenced to death for murder in 1983, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment in 1991 and later received a full royal pardon.

What to actually do

If you're petitioning for someone:

• Identify the correct Board — federal for FT and court-martial offences, state otherwise, based on where the case was tried.
• Get a criminal lawyer to prepare it. There's no prescribed form, which means the quality of the submission matters a great deal.
• Include everything relevant: judgments, prison conduct records, medical reports, family circumstances.
• Be realistic about timelines. Boards meet rarely, and there's no obligation to decide by any date.
• Understand what you're asking for — full pardon, sentence reduction, or remission — and say so clearly.

If you're following the news:

• "Royal pardon" in a headline may mean a full pardon or a sentence reduction. They're not the same.
• The Agong acts on the Pardons Board's advice. The 2025 ruling confirmed the procedure isn't optional.