KUALA LUMPUR, July 3 — The High Court today dismissed former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s bid to compel the federal government and the Pardons Board to produce a purported "supplementary order” from the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong that would allow him to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under "house arrest”.

Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh said no to Najib's suit after considering the affidavits in support filed by Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail affirming the existence of the purported order as hearsay.

In his broad grounds, Amarjeet Singh also said Najib had relied on fellow Cabinet member Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz as the source of the purported supplementary order yet failed to affirm the existence of it by way of an affidavit.

"The averments of Ahmad Zahid were also pure hearsay as the source of the information and his belief was Tengku Zafrul. Ahmad Zahid himself has no knowledge of the Addendum Order except what he heard from Tengku Zafrul.

"In Wan Rosdy’s affidavit, he also states that his source of information with regard to the Addendum Order is Tengku Zafrul. The averments made by Wan Rosdy are also hearsay,” Amarjeet said.

He also said Najib’s own affidavit contained bare statements without mentioning the source and his belief of the existence of the Addendum Order which the court found to be pure hearsay.

"There is also no explanation forthcoming as to this fact. The source was available but not used.

"Tengku Zafrul had attempted to file an affidavit, but this court denied him as the law does not allow him to do so at the leave stage. In the circumstances, I hold that the affidavits are purely hearsay,” he said.

As such, Amarjeet Singh held that there was no arguable case warranting a full hearing of the application.

Amarjeet Singh also said there is no provision in any written law or the Federal Constitution that imposes a legal duty on the part of the Pardons Board to confirm the existence or produce any order wherein the power of pardon is exercised.

"Mandamus (court order) can only be granted only when a legal duty is imposed on an authority,” the judge said of Najib’s demand to compel the order’s execution.

Senior federal counsels Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi and Shamsul Bolhassan appeared on behalf of the federal government and the Pardons Board, while Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for Najib.

At a press conference later, Muhammad Shafee said he intends to file an appeal over today’s decision.

A total of seven respondents were named in Najib’s suit, namely the home minister, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Attorney General, the Federal Territories Pardons Board, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), the Director General of Legal Affairs Division and the Malaysian government.

In his application for leave to seek judicial review filed on April 1, Najib claimed Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah issued the order during the January 29 meeting of the board, for the former to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence under house arrest.

In the application, Najib alleged that he received confirmation on February 12 about the issuance of the "supplementary order” or Addendum Order, which would allow him to serve a reduced prison sentence at home instead of the Kajang Prison where he is currently housed.

On February 2, the Pardon’s Board halved Najib’s sentence to six years for misappropriating funds amounting to RM42 million, which means he could be released as early as August 23, 2028.

Najib has been imprisoned since August 23, 2022, after the Federal Court upheld his conviction for criminal breach of trust, power abuse, and money laundering over the misappropriation of SRC International Sdn Bhd’s funds.

The Pardon’s Board said it had also decided to reduce his RM210 million fine to RM50 million, and his early release would be contingent on him paying this amount.

Other reliefs sought by Najib include for the court to compel the respondents to execute said supplementary order.