Beruk Tamil Naidu pun bagi celah tunjuk betapa bahalol dan bengong PN masih doh cukup jumeloh!

By Ida Lim

Friday, 10 Jan 2025 

PUTRAJAYA, Jan 10 — The Federal Territories Pardons Board’s official records on Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s case does not contain any additional document or addendum, its secretariat confirmed today.

The secretariat’s announcement today came amid Najib’s claims that the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong had added on a document or addendum to the Pardons Board’s January 29, 2024 decision.

Najib had claimed the alleged addendum would enable him to serve the rest of his reduced six-year jail sentence under house arrest.

But the Pardons Board’s secretariat — the Prime Minister’s Department’s (JPM) Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) — made it clear that it had no records of any extra documents added on to the January 29, 2024 Pardons Board meeting which had considered Najib’s pardons application.

“In relation to this matter, BHEUU, JPM as the Secretariat to the Pardons Board confirms that no additional document or addendum is in the file or official record under BHEUU, JPM and did not receive any notification or official orders from the Istana Negara regarding this matter,” the secretariat said in a statement today.

The secretariat said action could potentially be taken against any statement that could confuse the public about the Pardons Board’s position or role.

The Pardons Board’s January 29, 2024 meeting was chaired by the then 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, whose reign as Malaysia’s king ended on January 30, 2024. 

• The Pardons Board’s February 2, 2024 announcement of the reduced jail time for Najib made no mention of any house arrest order or additional documents, 
• while Najib has claimed that such an add-on document — sometimes referred to as “addendum” or “supplementary order” — was issued by the then Agong and actually exists.

The courts have yet to decide if the alleged add-on document is authentic and valid.

The Court of Appeal on Monday sent his case back to the High Court to enable it to be heard before a new judge. 

Najib’s jail term would end earlier in August 2026, if he is granted the typical one-third reduction for prisoners who show good behaviour and if he pays the RM50 million fine. 

All Pardons Board documents under OSA, only authorised individuals may have access

The secretariat also said the Pardons Board’s meetings and its information are fully subject to the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

“All related documents can only be accessed by the Pardons Board members and individuals who are given direct authorisation by the Board. 

“No one else, no matter their rank or position, has access to those documents, in line with the principles of confidentiality and integrity,” it said. 

My Comments: So how now brown cow? This is what has been reported in the Media. If indeed this statement is from the Pardons Board then can someone please explain why public money and the Court’s time are being used up to hear a case that does not exist?

Lets stack up some of the points in red: 

• does not contain any additional document or addendum, secretariat confirmed 
• (BHEUU) — made it clear that it had no records of any extra documents added on
• confirms that no additional document or addendum is in the file or official record  
• did not receive any notification or official orders from the Istana Negara 
• action could be taken against any statement that could confuse the public 
• February 2, 2024 announcement no mention of house arrest or additional docs

So why should the Court even hear this application? I am asking a layman’s question. Lets say there is a hypothetical situation. Someone’s house burned down. The house owner is trying to collect from the fire insurance. The insurance company says there was no fire insurance policy. The house owner files a case in Court and sues the insurance company. The house owner says he has a fire insurance policy from that particular insurance company. But the insurance company issues a public statement that there was no fire insurance for that house ever issued by the company and that no insurance premiums were paid and there is no such policy.

What should the Court do? Should the Court say, “Ok we will give you a mention date, followed by a case management date, followed by the trial itself“. And then find out after say another two years that ‘Ok there was no fire insurance policy issued by the insurance company. So there is no case.’

Wouldnt it be much faster and infinitely more just if the Court first makes sure that all the relevant ORIGINAL documents to support such a claim are properly filed with the Court? 

‘Excuse me Datuk, you say your defense is alibi. You say you were not in the country at the relevant time. You have submitted a photocopy of your passport to prove your absence. But the Court does not accept photocopies. We need your original passport‘. 

If no original passport the defense of alibi cannot proceed. End of story. 

Now I have another silly question. The Pardons Board through its Secretariat has clearly said its official records do not contain any additional Addendum. This statement has been issued to the public. I read it, you have read it and I am positive the Court has also read this report. Meaning the Court is informed and aware of the Pardons Board’s denial.

So here is my silly question : Does the case still proceed in Court?