KUALA LUMPUR – The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has filed an application at the High Court here to review the discharge order issued for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, amid continuing legal uncertainty over the implementation of his house arrest.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar confirmed the filing to the media, saying the application was intended to secure a fresh discharge order in accordance with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s consent granted on September 18, Bernama reported.
“The AGC filed an application at the High Court today to review and reconsider the discharge order issued on November 6.
“This is to obtain a new discharge order in accordance with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s consent on September 18,” he said.
The application was submitted to the High Court’s Criminal Registry.
On November 6, Najib paid the RM50 million fine at the High Court’s payment counter here as part of arrangements for him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.
However, he was returned to Kajang Prison after undergoing a medical examination at Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL).
The AGC had earlier announced a temporary suspension of the house-arrest arrangement pending further clarification on the interpretation of the Conditional Pardon Order granted by the King.
The latest application comes amid mounting questions over the wording of the discharge order issued by the High Court’s Criminal Registry last Friday, with several parties raising concerns over its legal implications.
Yesterday, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the court should determine the differing interpretations of the order, particularly whether it constituted an outright release or permitted Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
Speaking to reporters in Melaka, Saifuddin said the distinction between a discharge and house arrest had created legal ambiguity that needed to be resolved.
He explained that an outright discharge could mean the Prisons Department no longer had jurisdiction over Najib, whereas house arrest would require the department to retain authority over him, with his designated residence gazetted as the place where he would serve his sentence.
“In the case of house arrest, the prison authorities would still retain jurisdiction; however, a ‘discharge’ means that the prison authorities no longer possess such authority,” he said after visiting the Lereh Fishermen’s Jetty in Tanjung Kling, Melaka, on Monday.
Saifuddin said the Attorney-General had been consulted and had provided his opinion, but stressed that the matter would ultimately have to be determined by the court.
“When there are two competing interpretations, the court is the most appropriate forum. The ministry will abide by and respect that process,” he said.
He said the distinction was crucial as the two arrangements carried significantly different legal consequences.
“How are we supposed to proceed when the ‘order of discharge’ specifies a ‘release’, yet the Pardons Board mandates ‘house arrest’? House arrest and release are two different things,” he said.
Saifuddin also warned that interpreting the discharge order as requiring Najib’s immediate release could raise questions about the legality of keeping him under house arrest.
“Consider the implications of the term ‘release’. If the court were to interpret it as a ‘release’, it would mean the prison authorities are required to set Datuk Najib free — that is what the order would dictate. Instead, however, he was placed under house arrest. This could potentially amount to ‘wrongful detention’ or something similar. It is a possibility,” he said.
Nevertheless, Saifuddin maintained that the government had neither amended nor challenged the Pardons Board’s decision.
“There is no issue whatsoever; we have not altered a single word, a single comma, or any detail at all, of the Pardons Board’s decision,” he said.
Separately, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali said yesterday that any defects in the discharge order should be clarified by the authority that issued it to prevent wider public misunderstanding.
He said concerns over the order’s terminology and the mixing of languages in its wording had circulated on social media, making it important for the matter to be resolved promptly. – November 10, 2026