The court established that a judicial review application must demonstrate a clear legal right and a statutory duty on the authority to act, which was not satisfied in this case, resulting in the dismissal of the application.

Mohd Firuz Jaffril JCA (Majority):

Introduction

[1] This present appeal before us is against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision dated 3 July 2024 which dismissed the Appellant's (the Applicant) application for leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings.

[2] The said appeal was heard on 6 January 2025. At the end of the appeal, both my learned brother, Justice Azhahari Kamal Ramli and myself, decided in favour of the Appellant, whilst my learned sister, Justice Azizah Nawawi dissented. We now give our reasons for deciding so.

Brief Facts

[3] The Applicant is the former Prime Minister of Malaysia.

[4] The Respondents are:

i. Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform);

ii. the Commissioner General of Prison;

iii. the Attorney General of Malaysia;

iv. the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya;

v. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform)

vi. the Director General of Legal Affairs Division; and

vii. the Government of Malaysia.

[5] On 4 July 2018 and 8 August 2018, the Applicant was charged in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in relation to what is now commonly known as the "SRC Case" where he was found guilty of all charges on 28 July 2020. Accordingly, he was duly convicted by the High Court. Thereafter, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Both appeals were dismissed.

[6] On 1 September 2022, the Applicant through his solicitors Messrs Shafee & Co filed a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("YDPA") for a complete and/or full pardon against the conviction and sentence of the SRC Case pursuant to, inter alia, art 42 of the Federal Constitution .

[7] Following the petition filed on 1 September 2022, the Applicant filed subsequent addendums to the YDPA on 18 October 2022 and 20 April 2023 for His Majesty's consideration wherein other relevant developments in relation to the issues of pardons were raised, mostly in relation to the dominant issue that the Applicant was never given a fair trial or properly heard in the appeals.

[8] On 2 February 2024, the 4th Respondent under the purview of the 5th and 6th Respondents announced that the YDPA (interchangeably referred to as "His Majesty") had convened the 61st Pardons Board meeting for the Federal Territories on 8 December 2023. The said meeting was then adjourned to 15 January 2024 and then to 29 January 2024 when the Pardons Board finally sat again, wherein His Majesty ordered that the Applicant's imprisonment sentence be reduced from 12 to 6 years and the fine of RM210 million reduced to RM50 million, ie the "Main Order".

[9] It is the Applicant's case that His Majesty had also immediately or simultaneously issued an Addendum Order on the same day. This Addendum Order was however not announced by the 4th to the 6th Respondents or by any of the other Respondents when the announcement of the Main Order was made on 2 February 2024.

[10] According to the Applicant, he had on 12 February 2024 received clear and reliable information that in addition to the Main Order dated 29 January 2024, His Majesty had issued an Addendum Order stipulating that the Applicant be allowed to serve the reduced sentence of his imprisonment under condition of "home arrest," instead of confinement in Kajang Prison or any other prison.

[11] Armed with that information, the Applicant instructed his solicitors to confirm the details of the Addendum Order with the Attorney General. The letter was also copied to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Subsequently, the matter was escalated to the other Respondents regarding the existence and lack of enforcement of the Addendum Order.

[12] On 19 February 2024, the Applicant's solicitors wrote to the director of Kajang Prison requesting for the original copy of the Addendum Order or a copy of the Main Order. The request went unanswered.

[13] In so far as the Applicant is concerned, his personal