NOVEMBER 10 — When I first read the court order concerning former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s release following payment of his RM50 million fine, two thoughts immediately crossed my mind.
My first was that the document was fake. Just look at the heading: Order of discharge on payment of fine.
Then came the second line, which read: In the Tinggi Court of Wilayah Persekutuan.
Where on earth can you find a “Tinggi Court” in Malaysia? Surely, this must be a fake court document.
I shared my observation with a source close to the matter, who insisted that the document was genuine. I remained unconvinced, pointing out further evidence that suggested something was seriously wrong with it.
For one, the document switches between English and Bahasa Melayu, sometimes within the same sentence. Having seen and read court documents before, I found this rather odd and unprofessional.
This brings me to my second observation.
The document appears to have been prepared in a hurry, with typos scattered throughout. Apart from the person who drafted it, I doubt anyone checked or edited its spelling, sentence structure or contents.
Najib’s lawyers, who applied for the order, should have noticed these errors if they bothered to read and check the document. They, too, bear some responsibility for the mistakes and inconsistencies.
Although the document is addressed to the officer-in-charge of Kajang prison, the background information about the prisoner appears to list only one charge under Section 406 of the Penal Code, repeated three times, instead of identifying the three charges under three different Acts.
Even the client’s name is inconsistent, appearing sometimes with “Mohd” and sometimes without it.
But the most puzzling part is the last paragraph in the first column, which reads:
“Sekiranya Dato Seri Najib... tidak mematuhi mana-mana syarat-syarat tersebut, maka Perintah ini adalah terbatal dan Dato Seri Najib... hendaklah secara serta-merta meneruskan baki hukuman di Penjara Kajang atau di mana-mana penjara yang ditetapkan oleh Komisioner Jeneral Penjara. or to Menjalani hukuman baki secara tahanan di rumah yang beralamat di No. 11, Jalan Langgak Duta, Taman Duta...”
The mixing of Bahasa Melayu and English in this paragraph is not only poor but also confusing. A sentence cannot simply begin with the lowercase English word “or” and continue in Bahasa Melayu.
More importantly, how is anyone supposed to interpret a sentence that appears to offer three different options, even when the prisoner has failed to comply with the stipulated terms and conditions?
Does the prisoner still have the option of serving the remainder of his sentence at Kajang prison, being transferred to another prison designated by the commissioner-general of prisons, or serving the remainder of his sentence under house arrest at his own residence?
What sort of court order is that?
If this document is indeed genuine, as my source insists, I fully agree with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) seeking clarification from the court.
There are simply too many errors, inconsistencies and ambiguities in the document to be ignored.
The attorney-general is right to have identified a potential conflict between the High Court’s order of release and the proposed house-arrest arrangement.
An order of release is intended to release a prisoner from custody. It is not an order to transfer a prisoner from one place of detention to another, even if Najib’s residence has been gazetted as a place of detention.
At the same time, the AGC cannot simply disregard a court order, whether it agrees with its contents or not.
The conflict and confusion may have arisen because Najib’s lawyers applied for and obtained what appears to be a conventional order of release, when his circumstances were anything but conventional.
His situation involved an unprecedented house-arrest arrangement that required a properly drafted and legally unambiguous court order.
This entire ordeal has been compounded by what appears to be the failure of a court official to produce a proper, concise and legally precise document in Bahasa Melayu, with clear terms and specific instructions.
Najib’s lawyers should have recognised this problem from the outset and ensured that the appropriate order was sought.
If the order of release is followed, and the AGC has no lawful grounds to refuse compliance with a court order, the consequence could be that Najib is released from his current detention and becomes liable to begin serving his 15-year prison sentence arising from his 1MDB conviction.
The irony is that this entire ordeal may have been caused by Najib’s own lawyers. It is therefore up to them to take the necessary steps to untangle the legal mess they may have created.
The court has a responsibility to issue a legally correct order, but the lawyers seeking that order have an equally important responsibility to ensure that they ask for the right one.
One thing should be made clear: the confusion and conflict are certainly not the king’s fault, nor should the attorney-general be blamed for seeking clarification.
The attorney general is right to insist that the matter be resolved carefully and in accordance with the law.
Given the public interest and constitutional implications, the AGC is also right to proceed cautiously. The eyes of all Malaysians are on this matter.
Ultimately, the law must prevail. Neither the court, the AGC nor the parties involved can afford to leave the public guessing about what the order actually means.
I believe the king and the Malaysian public would understand the need for such clarification.
What was supposed to be a straightforward court order has now become a full-blown court ordeal.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
