January 15, 2025
Kuala Lumpur – The Malaysian government’s move to apply for a gag order to block talk about former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s application for house arrest has sparked a backlash from politicians and experts who question its purpose.
Constitutional law expert Shad Saleem Faruqi told The Straits Times that the gag order was “too late and futile” given that discussions on the matter had already entered the public domain.
“The gag order appears to be too late as the issue has already been discussed openly in Parliament and in the media,” said Professor Shad, who teaches at the University of Malaya.
On January 13, Deputy Public Prosecutor Shamsul Bolhassan said the government would submit an application to suppress discussion of Najib's attempts to serve out the remainder of his sentence at home.
The application will be submitted to the court by January 20, he said.
In 2022, Najib was sentenced to 12 years in prison for corruption related to the multibillion-dollar scandal at state fund 1MDB.
In January 2024, the Pardon Board, chaired by the then Malaysian King Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah, decided to halve Najib's 12-year prison sentence and pay his RM210 million (63.6 million S$) fine was reduced to RM50 million.
Najib claimed there was a royal addendum to the decision that entitled him to serve his sentence at home.
On January 7, Najib won a legal challenge, allowing the Malaysian High Court to hear his case for house arrest. He is seeking a court order forcing the government to verify and enforce the Royal Addendum.
Malaysia's opposition and factions within Najib's party Umno have since exploited the issue, claiming the ruling government and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had kept the royal orders secret. These claims have been denied by Datuk Seri Anwar.
Umno supreme council member Mohd Puad Zarkashi said in a Facebook post on January 14 that applying for a gag order would only bring a negative impression to the government.
“This will create a trust deficit in the government. Banning public discussion of the royal appendix will lead the public to believe that there are more secrets hidden. There is a lot of speculation and negative assumptions on social media,” said Datuk Puad. “This will have a negative impact on the government's credibility.”
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Legal and Institutional Reforms) Azalina Osman Said told the media on January 14 that a gag order should not be issued in Najib's case because the issue was already public and there were many reports about it. Discussions will continue. She said the issue may also be discussed when Parliament resumes on February 3.
Nonetheless, she stressed that the judiciary should be allowed to make independent decisions on the matter.
“To be fair, I think the attorney general has his own legal reasons and they will be filing a formal application (for a gag order). So let the courts decide on that,” she said.
The gag order has also sparked criticism of Anwar and his Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition, which has long championed free speech while in opposition.
Mr Anwar must strike a balance between keeping main coalition ally Umno happy and maintaining his reputation among his own supporters as an anti-corruption crusader.
Malaysia's opposition Bersatu MP Datuk Wan Saif Wanyan told The Straits Times that the government's move to prevent MPs from even discussing the issue did not sit well with Mr Anwar.
“Anwar is not a friend of free speech. The entire government is working to restrict free speech in Malaysia from every angle and this is another element of that effort,” Mr Wan Saiful said.
In 2016, when Najib was prime minister, then-parliament speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia issued a gag order prohibiting Malaysian lawmakers from raising questions about the 1MDB collapse. Mr Anwar's colleagues in Pakatan Harapan, where he was in opposition in 2016, strongly protested the directive.
The order was lifted in August 2018 after Pakatan Harapan came to power.
Ibrahim Suffian, program director of the Merdeka Center, an opinion research organization, told The Straits Times that applying for the gag order was not to restrict public speech but to protect the royal institution.
“I think the main reason behind the application is that it infringes on the palace's prerogatives. If the debate continues, it will affect public perception of the king, which the government wants to avoid.
Professor Schad said the success of the government's bid to restrict free speech would depend on whether it complied with what is allowed under the constitution. These include considerations such as whether the restrictions are in line with public order, whether such discussions are in contempt of court, and whether they protect the sovereignty of the ruler.
“I think the attorney general's challenge in getting a gag order is to find limits (on free speech) within the permissible enumerations of the Constitution,” he said.
- Azril Annuar is a Malaysian correspondent for The Straits Times.
