Can Courts Review a Royal Pardon? The Addendum Appeals and the Bar’s Challenge

Can a court examine a royal pardon at all? Between 2024 and 2026, two sets of proceedings arising from Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s sentence in the SRC International case approached that question from opposite directions. Najib asked the courts to enforce a royal “addendum order” on house arrest. The Malaysian Bar asked the courts to review the Pardons Board decision that halved his sentence. The first case has ended; the second awaits judgment in the Court of Appeal.

Key dates

• 2 February 2024: the Federal Territories Pardons Board’s decision is announced: Najib’s 12-year sentence is halved and his fine cut from RM210 million to RM50 million.

• 1 April 2024: Najib files for judicial review over the addendum order.

• 3 July 2024: the High Court refuses him leave.

• 11 November 2024: in a separate case, the High Court refuses the Malaysian Bar leave.

• 6 January 2025: the Court of Appeal, 2–1, allows Najib’s appeal.

• 13 August 2025: the Federal Court unanimously dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal.

• 12 November 2025: the Federal Court restates that Pardons Board decisions are non-justiciable.

• 22 December 2025: the High Court dismisses Najib’s application on the merits.

• April 2026: Najib’s appeal is discontinued (notice in early April; struck out 14 April).

• 31 July 2026: the Court of Appeal reserves judgment in the Bar’s appeal.

Leave: a low threshold, first missed on hearsay

Judicial review has two stages. The applicant must first obtain leave, a filter for cases that are frivolous or not arguable. Leave is not a finding that the applicant is right. On 3 July 2024 Justice Amarjeet Singh refused leave because the four affidavits supporting the application were hearsay, or second-hand evidence.

The Court of Appeal: a copy of the document arrives

By a majority, the Court of Appeal on 6 January 2025 admitted further evidence: an affidavit by Najib’s son exhibiting a copy of the addendum obtained from the Pahang palace. Justice Mohd Firuz Jaffril noted that the Government had filed no affidavit in rebuttal, and that at the leave stage the court was concerned not with the document’s authenticity but with whether it existed. Justice Azhahari Kamal Ramli agreed; Justice Azizah Nawawi, who chaired the panel, dissented.

The Federal Court: existence conceded, validity left open

The Attorney General’s further appeal came before Justices Hasnah Mohammed Hashim (Chief Judge of Malaya), Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Hanipah Farikullah, who dismissed it unanimously on 13 August 2025. The concession that the addendum exists weighed heavily. Justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof indicated that existence was one matter, while the addendum’s status, meaning its validity and whether it was true, had to be determined at the substantive hearing. The case went to a different High Court judge, with no order as to costs.

Justice Alice Loke Yee Ching dismissed a recusal application on 11 September 2025 and, on 22 December 2025, dismissed the judicial review: the addendum existed but was invalid, because it had not been deliberated or decided at the Pardons Board’s meeting as Article 42 of the Federal Constitution requires. Najib’s appeal was discontinued in April 2026.

The opposite direction: the Malaysian Bar’s challenge

The Bar’s case differs in kind. It seeks not to enforce an act of clemency but to review one, the February 2024 reduction. On 11 November 2024 Justice Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid refused leave, holding the matter non-justiciable and the application frivolous, and treating the decisions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Pardons Board as parts of a single process. The Bar appealed on 3 December 2024.

On 31 July 2026 a Court of Appeal panel of Justices Lim Chong Fong, Azhahari Kamal Ramli and Leonard David Shim reserved judgment. As reported, the Attorney General’s Chambers submitted that if the decision to grant a pardon is not open to judicial review, neither is the process leading to it.

The Federal Court’s November 2025 restatement

According to a Bernama report, on 12 November 2025 a five-judge Federal Court led by the Chief Justice heard a prosecution review application concerning prisoners whose death sentences had been commuted by a Pardons Board. The court held that they could not use Act 847, the death-sentence revision law, to alter the commencement date fixed by the Board. It restated that Malaysian courts have long regarded the Board’s prerogative power as non-justiciable.

Where the line may lie

The High Court’s December 2025 grounds cite the cases associated with non-justiciability: Sim Kie Chon in the High Court and Supreme Court, Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor and Juraimi bin Husin. Courts do not re-examine whether mercy should be shown.

The open question is narrower. One view is that process and decision are inseparable, so neither can be reviewed. Another draws on the December 2025 ruling, where the High Court distinguished an attack on the merits of clemency from verifying compliance with constitutional procedure when a party asks the court to enforce an order. Whether the Board’s process can be reviewed even though the mercy decision cannot is the issue before the Court of Appeal. We express no view and make no prediction.

Practical takeaways

• Leave means a case is arguable, not that it will succeed: Najib obtained leave and lost on the merits.

• Evidence matters even at the threshold. The application failed on hearsay and revived once a copy of the document was in evidence.

• Conceding that a document exists does not settle its validity.

• The merits of a pardon are not reviewable. Whether the process is reviewable is pending.

Status

Najib’s addendum litigation has ended. The Malaysian Bar’s appeal remained pending, judgment reserved, as at 19 September 2026. The conditional pardon of 18 September 2026 is a separate, later decision.

Authorities and sources

• Sim Kie Chon v Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors [1985] 2 MLJ 385; Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors v Sim Kie Chon [1986] 1 MLJ 494; Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor [1988] 1 MLJ 64; Juraimi bin Husin v Pardons Board, State of Pahang & Ors [2002] 4 MLJ 529.

• Federal Court, 13 August 2025, reported as The Attorney General of Malaysia v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak and another appeal [2025] 5 MLJ 944.

• Federal Constitution, Article 42.

• The Star, 3 and 4 July 2024; Malay Mail, 3 and 6 January 2025; The Edge (Court of Appeal ruling); The Star, 13 August 2025; Bernama on the recusal ruling and the November 2025 Federal Court decision; High Court grounds published by The Edge; Malay Mail, 22 December 2025; Malay Mail and The Star, 27 April 2026; The Star, 31 July 2026; Malay Mail, 18 September 2026.

This article is general legal information only and is current as at 19 September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Court decisions may be appealed and the law may change; please seek advice on your own circumstances. — Chris & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors