Najib’s house arrest: Not a get-out-of-jail free card — Hafiz Hassan

In Malaysia, house arrest is not typically permitted by law, but it can be implemented under the provisions of the Prison Act 1995.

The act allows the Home Minister to declare any location a prison, thereby enabling individuals like former Prime Minister Najib to serve their sentences under house arrest while remaining subject to prison regulations.

Concerns about Najib's conditional pardon are addressed by clarifying that house arrest constitutes a lawful sentence, maintaining its integrity as a form of imprisonment.

SEPTEMBER 19 — House arrest is not a get-out-of-jail free card.

That is why, as I wrote in Conditions for Najib’s house arrest to reflect govt’s resolve to fight corruption and abuse of power , Najib remains a prisoner, but serving his prison sentence under house arrest.

House arrest is not provided by law in Malaysia. But it can be enforced under the existing provisions of the Prison Act 1995 (Act 537).

First, since under Section 2 of the Act defines “prison” as “any house, building, enclosure or place, or any part thereof, declared to be a prison under Section 3”, the place or any part of it where the former prime minister is to serve his house arrest can be declared a prison.

Section 3 of the Act empowers the Home Minister to declare, by notification in the Gazette, “any house, building, enclosure or place, or any part thereof, to be a prison” for the purposes of the Act.

Second, under Section 12 of the Act, the Commissioner General of Prison may make and issue order, to be called Commissioner General’s Standing Orders, not inconsistent with the Act or of any regulations made under the Act.

Third, under Section 26(1) of the Act, a prisoner is deemed to be in the lawful custody of the Officer in Charge of the prison and therefore subject to prison discipline and to all written laws relating to prisons or prisoners and to the Commissioner General’s Standing Orders during the period of his imprisonment, whether or not he is within the precincts of a prison.

Accordingly, during the period of his house arrest, Najib should be deemed to be in prison and “shall be subject to all the same incidents as if he were actually in prison”.

Fourth, under Section 43 of the Act, the Commissioner General “may, at any time if he thinks fit, release on licence and on such conditions as may be specified in the licence, a prisoner serving any term of imprisonment.

The Commissioner General may also, “at any time… modify or cancel the conditions in the licence”.

Fourth, under Section 67 of the Act, the Home Minister may publish in the Gazette such regulations as may be necessary or expedient for the good management and government of prisons, and for carrying out or achieving the objects and purposes of the Act.

Accordingly, regulations made by the Minister may provide for Najib’s house arrest.

Regulations are subsidiary legislation, but law, nonetheless. They have the force of law, not unlike the Movement of Control Orders (MCOs) which were made under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (Act 342) to prevent the spread of the Covid-19.

Call Najib’s house arrest a CMO, if you like.

So, while there have been concerns and regrets expressed over Najib’s conditional pardon that allows the former prime minister to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, the same can be enforced under provisions of the Act.

That makes Najib’s house arrest a rule of law sentence.

Not a get-out-of-jail free card.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail .

Malaysia must pursue legal action against Indonesia over transboundary haze — Shahrul Mizan Ismail

One warning is all it takes — Nur Syazwani Ahmad

Healthcare should not come with a surprise bill — Azanin Ahmad

Three young motorcyclists killed, nine injured as 15 vehicles collide in pre‑dawn Ipoh crash

MCMC and police trace individuals tied to resurfaced 2018 clip accused of insulting Rukun Negara

Thumbprints gave her away: Woman gets four months’ jail for presenting fake MyKad at Sabah NRD

在马来西亚，法律通常不允许软禁，但可以根据 1995 年监狱法令的规定实施软禁。

该法案允许内政部长宣布任何地点为监狱，从而使像前总理纳吉布这样的人能够在遵守监狱规定的前提下，在家中服刑。

针对纳吉布有条件赦免的担忧，澄清了居家监禁构成合法刑罚，维护了其作为监禁形式的完整性。

9月19日——居家监禁并非免罪金牌。

因此，正如我在《纳吉布居家监禁的条件体现了政府打击腐败和滥用权力的决心》一文中所写，纳吉布仍然是囚犯，但他的刑期是在家中软禁服刑。

马来西亚法律没有规定软禁，但可以根据1995年监狱法令（第537号法令）的现有条款强制执行。

首先，由于该法第 2 条将“监狱”定义为“任何房屋、建筑物、围墙或场所，或其任何部分，根据第 3 条被宣布为监狱”，因此，前总理将被软禁的场所或其任何部分可以被宣布为监狱。

该法第 3 条授权内政部长通过在政府公报上发布通知，宣布“任何房屋、建筑物、围墙或场所，或其任何部分，为监狱”，以适用该法。

第二，根据该法第 12 条，监狱总监可以制定并发布命令，称为监狱总监常设命令，该命令不得与该法或根据该法制定的任何规章相抵触。

第三，根据该法第 26(1) 条，囚犯被视为处于监狱主管官员的合法拘留之下，因此在其监禁期间，无论其是否在监狱范围内，均须遵守监狱纪律以及与监狱或囚犯有关的所有成文法律和监狱署长的常设命令。

因此，在纳吉被软禁期间，应视其身处监狱，“并应受到与实际身处监狱时相同的待遇”。

第四，根据该法第 43 条，专员“可以随时根据其认为合适的条件，向正在服刑的囚犯发放假释，并附加假释中规定的条件。

总署长还可以“随时……修改或取消许可证中的条件”。

第四，根据该法第 67 条，内政部长可以在政府公报上公布为监狱的良好管理和治理以及为执行或实现该法的目标和目的所必需或适宜的规章。

因此，部长制定的规章可以规定对纳吉布实施软禁。

规章是附属立法，但本质上也是法律。它们具有法律效力，与根据1988年《传染病预防和控制法》（第342号法令）制定的行动管制令（MCO）类似，后者旨在防止新冠肺炎疫情的传播。

如果你愿意，可以把纳吉布的软禁称为首席医疗官（CMO）。

因此，尽管有人对纳吉布的有条件赦免表示担忧和遗憾，该赦免允许这位前总理在家中服完剩余的刑期，但根据该法案的规定，这一赦免是可以执行的。

这使得纳吉布的软禁成为一项依法判决。

这不是一张免罪金牌。

* 这是作者或刊物的个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的观点。

马来西亚必须就跨境雾霾对印度尼西亚采取法律行动——Shahrul Mizan Ismail

只需一次警告就足够了——努尔·沙兹瓦尼·艾哈迈德

阿扎宁·艾哈迈德表示，医疗保健不应该带来意外账单。

怡保凌晨发生15辆车相撞事故，造成三名年轻摩托车手死亡，九人受伤。

马来西亚通讯及多媒体委员会（MCMC）和警方正在追踪与一段2018年视频有关的人员，该视频被指控侮辱国家原则。

指纹暴露了她的行踪：女子因在沙巴国民登记处出示假身份证被判入狱四个月