Pardon process decree implementation is government’s responsibility - Expert

SHAH ALAM - The ruling government remains part of those responsible for determining the implementation or decree of the pardon process.

Constitutional expert Associate Professor Dr Muhammad Fathi Yusof said that based on Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, the power of pardon lies with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the support and role of the Pardons Board advising His Majesty.

However, he said, the constitution did not specify the method of decision-making, whether His Majesty was bound by the advice of the Pardons Board or not.

"In the context of the current case, when the Additional Decree is said to contain instructions for Datuk Seri Najib Razak to be placed under house arrest, questions arise regarding the implementation of the decree.

"Although the jurisdiction of the Pardons Board is under the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the implementation of the pardon decision is the responsibility of the government," he said when contacted by Sinar on Tuesday.

He said this when commenting on the statement of former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Latheefa Koya, who criticised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim regarding the decision of house detention, stating it was a Royal Decree.

Fathi added that in this matter, the ruling government remained part of those responsible for determining the implementation or decree of the pardon process.

What was important, he said, was the government's explanation regarding the issue of the additional decree, after two months of the pardon being announced to the public.

"If this additional decree indeed exists, why wasn't it implemented? Is it because the decree contradicts the existing legal system in our country that does not provide provisions or guidelines regarding house detention?

"So, I think the government needs to provide an explanation so that this issue does not continue to be a question for the public," he said.

Fathi said that Article 42 of the Federal Constitution briefly mentioned that one form of pardon was from the perspective of mitigating punishment.

Therefore, he said, if the additional decree existed, it might be based on a proposal to mitigate punishment from the perspective of where the detention was carried out, namely not in prison but rather at home.

"However, we cannot deny that the existing legal system, including the Prison Act and other laws, does not provide a specific provision regarding house detention.

"So, this may be a constraint for the authorities to implement it. The problem may be overcome through amendments to the law and so on," he added.