Is Sentence Reduction Justified?

Perhaps the most positive thing about the Federal Territories Pardons Board’s decision is that it held the convictions for the offences committed by former Prime Minister Najib Razak in the RM42m SRC case. Najib, however, was granted a reduced term of imprisonment from 12 years to six years and a 76% ‘discount’ on the fine imposed on him – from RM210m to RM50m. Najib was tried and convicted for deriving advantage from RM42m, not for the entire RM4bn KWAP loan.

The irony is that Najib was one of the prime architects of our anti-corruption institutions and laws. He had vast and unmatched power as PM. But even before he assumed the prime minister’s post, he was a powerful man. To show he was serious about good governance, Najib saw to the passing of the Whistleblower Protection Act in May 2010 and the establishment of the Razak School of Government a few months later.

Source:https://focusmalaysia.my

Some of Najib’s sympathisers appeared troubled by the sentence meted out to him. When other criminals are convicted and given long sentences, people generally feel they deserve it because they have committed serious crimes. But, it would seem, an objectionable exception has been made for Najib.

The speculation about a pardon for Najib rose to astonishing levels on 30 January, the day the previous king relinquished his position. The rumour mill was fuelled by a foreign news report in the afternoon that predicted – accurately as it turned out – that the prison term would be halved.

The implications of the Pardons Board decision are far-reaching to Malaysia’s standing in the community of nations. Tragically, the outcome could result in irreparable damage from a national perspective. It impinges on a fundamental principle in any political entity – that there has to be utmost respect for the rule of law.

What does it say about the current government’s commitment to combat corruption or abuse of office, especially when it involves highly placed officials? The current PM and his government must realise that, with a few more cases involving Najib are coming up, a pardon at this stage would only confuse the people.

It also undermines the efforts of investigators and prosecutors and demoralises the system of administration of justice. For foreigners in the banking, business, financial and investor community, it suggests that while Malaysia has its laws and penalties, these may be side-stepped to suit particular members of the political elite.

Can ordinary people be blamed for now seeing the tough anti-corruption penalties as only applicable to lower-grade civil servants or those on the lower rungs of the banking and business community? Did the political elite who formulated these laws have the belief and confidence that these laws would never apply to them?

Has Malaysia defaulted on its debt of accountability? Could other prisoners expect 50% reduction of their sentences? Should enforcers be trained to expect 50% reduction in sentences? Is this unique to Malaysia? No, in the U.S. the President could pardon members of his administration (or others) during his term of office. But this doesn’t justify our current case against Najib.

Reference:

Slashed sentence for a pathetic, plundering predator? M Santhananaban, ALIRAN, 3 February 2024