Malaysiakini : Reading the unanimous decision, Tengku Maimun said: “It is our unanimous view that the evidence led during the trial points overwhelmingly to guilt on all seven charges, so much so that it would have been a travesty of justice of the highest order if any reasonable tribunal, faced with such evidence staring it in the face, were to find that the appellant (Najib) is not guilty of the seven charges preferred against him.”

In January 2023, the Umno juggernaut rolled in with Zahid calling on the judiciary to give Najib “fair justice” (whatever this means) in his criminal trials. Claiming that Najib was a victim of political persecution, Zahid made the call in his policy speech at the Umno general assembly, where it received a resounding round of applause from party delegates.

“We demand (sic) that he be given justice in court. We demand that fair justice is given to Datuk Seri Najib,” Zahid thundered.

The phrases “fair trial” and “justice” have been misused interchangeably ever since Najib was first charged in 2018, and continue to be used by his supporters, cronies, politicians, and lawyers.

All this, despite Najib being described as a “national embarrassment” by the Court of Appeal, and despite then High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah’s damning judgment in the 1MDB case.

The judge described Najib’s plundering of state-owned 1MDB as graver than the acts of Attila the Hun, because his role in one of the world’s greatest financial scandals resulted in enormous debts of tens of billions of ringgit that generations of Malaysians will have to bear.

In an 810-page written judgment, Sequerah said Najib had leveraged the vast powers bestowed on him by his “exalted positions” as prime minister, finance minister, and chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers to enable the audacious theft at the strategic investment company.

The scale of the 1MDB scandal involving Najib was so vast that it made “Attila the Hun look like a choirboy by comparison”.

Umno’s ‘humble plea’

Yet, the Umno charade continues, as if Najib’s pardon - like other privileges for selected politicians - were an entitlement that lesser mortals should not question.

It continued at the Umno assembly over the weekend. Zahid expressed sadness over the postponement of Najib’s pardon application hearing but maintained his support for the royal institution.

“We continue to uphold the rulers and hope for the best for Najib,” he said.

At the closing session, Zahid repeated the same mantra, making a “humble plea” on behalf of the party to Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar to consider a pardon for Najib.

“Umno concedes that this matter (of Najib’s pardon) cannot be resolved at this point, and we respect the process. With utmost humility, we - the Umno general assembly - respectfully appeal for Your Majesty’s gracious consent and royal prerogative to grant a full pardon to Najib,” Zahid said.

Najib has not expressed regret or remorse; he has never apologised for his role in the losses suffered by us, the Malaysian taxpayers, who continue to pay for his excesses and his dealings with Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Now let us look at the damage caused. As of March 2023, the government had paid RM43.8 billion of 1MDB’s obligations, while a further RM9.7 billion remained outstanding, comprising RM5 billion in principal and RM4.7 billion in interest, according to then-deputy finance minister Ahmad Maslan.

The scale of these figures is difficult to ignore. Public discussion of accountability cannot be separated from the financial burden ultimately borne by the state and, by extension, taxpayers. Even after tens of billions of ringgit had been paid, substantial liabilities remained.

Viewed financially, the cost is not limited to the principal sums involved. It includes the opportunity cost of capital. Using a simplified illustration, a notional RM50 billion placed at five per cent annual interest over six years would generate more than RM17 billion through compound growth. While this is merely a hypothetical comparison, it highlights that the economic impact of large-scale losses extends beyond the original amount involved.

Financial consequences

What could the government have done with the extra money? More could have been allocated to healthcare, affordable housing, and a host of other services that would have benefited the nation and its people.

Instead, burdened with debt, we have been asked to tighten our belts, and even our doctors are being paid a pittance for their yeoman service.

The central question in any debate about clemency, pardon, or accountability is therefore not only whether a punishment has been served, but also how society weighs the magnitude of the financial consequences against principles of justice, responsibility, and public trust.

Redemption is atoning for guilt, a fault, or a mistake. Najib has yet to admit wrongdoing or express remorse, despite the Federal Court affirming the guilty verdicts passed by the courts below in the SRC International case.

The word pardon denotes an exercise in forgiving someone—in this case, a convicted wrongdoer. In most cases, the offender expresses remorse and seeks forgiveness, but here, Najib is seeking a pardon defiantly.

Despite billions lost to theft and leakage, justice lags as culprits continue to benefit from their crimes.

And Umno, to a greater extent, has refused to accept that Najib misused public funds, refusing to accept the adage - if you do the crime, you must do the time.

But a clear message has to be sent: the larger the loss, the higher the threshold many citizens believe should apply when considering exceptional relief. And the higher the status, the more severe the punishment should be.