10 Group Statement - Independence of the Judiciary Requires the Removal of the Prime Minister’s Power to Choose and Elevate Judges, whereby that power should be with an Independent Judicial Appointments Commission

 

Joint Media Statement(10 Groups) – 12/7/2025

Independence of the Judiciary Requires the Removal of the Prime Minister’s Power to Choose and Elevate Judges, whereby that power should be with an Independent Judicial Appointments Commission

Malaysian Federal Constitution and the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 need to be speedily amended

We, the 10 undersigned groups advocate for the independence of the Judiciary, and an end of the role of the Prime Minister and/or the Executive arm of government in the appointment and elevation of judges in Malaysia. This also RISK compromising the important role the Judiciary plays in a democracy which is to be an effective check on the other branches, being the Executive and the Legislature.

Fair trial is also at threat in cases where the Prime Minister is a party, in his personal capacity or otherwise, if the Prime Minister has the power to choose, appoint and elevate judges to higher positions.

Malaysia’s New Judicial Crisis

Malaysia may be facing another ‘Judicial Crisis’ as allegations that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim may be appointing Judges on his own, and not always following the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commissions (JAC) have been raised.  To date, Anwar Ibrahim has yet to confirm that all judicial appointments have been done as per the recommendation of the JAC, and that he had never appointed any Judge who was not recommended by the JAC.

The Lingam Tape scandal of 2007, brought to light concerns about the process of appointing judges, particularly the potential for improper influence by third parties. This scandal resulted in the stance that appointment and elevation of Judges ought to be done by an independent body, the Judicial Appointments Commission, who will then advice the King, or will inform the Prime Minister who will advice the King on judicial appointments.

In any event, following the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009, it was accepted that the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) shall recommend to the Prime Minister on judicial appointments and elevations, who will then advice the King.

Until Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, there has been no allegation of any past Prime Ministers acting not in compliance with the recommendation of the JAC.

Why 6-month extension for most, but 3 Judges of the Federal Court? 

The recent failure of offering the 6-month extension to just 3 Federal Court judges, being Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat(who retired on 1/7/2025), Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim(who retired on 2/7/2025) and Federal Court judge Nallini Pathmanathan(who will retire in August) stands out as ODD when other retiring Federal Court judges were offered the post-retirement 6 month extension as provided by the Federal Constitution.

Of the 8 Federal Court judges due to retire, 5 have been granted extensions - Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim (now to retire on Nov 14), Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli (now to retire in July), Federal Court judges Zabariah Yusof (now to retire on Oct 10) and FCJ Hanipah Farikullah(now to retire Nov 22). Federal Court judge Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal who turned 66 last October, is also serving his six-month extensions. Federal Court judge, Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, who turned 66 in April, was also offered an extension, but chose not to take it. (Edge, 13/3/2025).

Thus, the failure to offer 6-month extension to just these 3 Judges raises questions, and suggest interference in judicial appointments.

Did the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) recommend no extension for this 3? Did the King oppose the extension? Or was it the Prime Minister that did not want to grant the 3 extensions? A lack of transparency keeps everyone in the dark and suspicions arises that the PM is picking and elevating judges as he pleases.

The law, as it stands now, still gives the Prime Minister the absolute power to decide on the appointment and elevation of judges. The King, is bound to appoint or elevate judges as advised by the Prime Minister. The King has no power to act contrary to the advice of the Prime Minister. Thus, if appointments are done contrary to the recommendation of the JAC, the fault lies with the Prime Minister alone.

Judicial Appointments Commission of Act 2009 and its shortcomings

After the Judicial Appointments Commission of Act 2009 came into being, which was intended to leave the selection of judges for appointment and elevation to an independent Commission who will then select and recommend the names of judges to be appointed or elevated to the Prime Minister, who will then advise the King.

Despite the inadequacies in the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009(JAC Act), including the failure to make it MANDATORY that the Prime Minister follow the recommendation of the JAC, past Prime Ministers seem to have followed the recommendations of the JAC when appointing judges but NOW there is concern that the current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim may have abandoned this good practice and may have appointed or elevated his own chosen persons, as judges, contrary to the recommendation of the JAC.

There is an urgent need to amend the JAC Act, and also the Federal Constitution to ensure that Prime Minister do as recommended by the JAC.

Unexplained Delay in Appointing Chief Judge of High Court of Malaya

The first indication that something was amiss may have been unexplainable delay of about 9 months before the vacancy for the position of the Chief Judge of High Court of Malaya, that became vacant on 29/2/2024, was finally filled on 12/11/2024, when Hasnah Mohamed Hashim was appointed. So, was the delay caused by the JAC, or was it because the Prime Minister refused to accept the JAC’s recommendation? Was Hasnah Mohamed Hashim, who was then appointed Chief Judge of High Court of Malaya, the Prime Minister’s own choice, or a person recommended by the JAC?

The composition of the JAC is mandatory, and it shall include the Chief Judge of High Court of Malaya, and as such in the of the said new Chief Judge’s appointment, the question of the validity of the Commission and its decisions is an issue, and hence, the question of the validity of appointment of that 25 judges on 12/11/2024 may be an issue.

The Appointment of a Sitting Public Prosecutor as Federal Court Judge

The 2^nd issue of concern is the appointment of then sitting Attorney General/Public Prosecutor Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh as a Federal Court Judge. It was different from the situation when another former Attorney General, Mohtar Abdullah was made Federal Court Judge, after he had retired. The difference was that Terrirudin was appointed whilst he was still Public Prosecutor.

It is acknowledged that prosecutors must be able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or other improper interference, even from Government.

Thus, no one who understands this principle to safeguard the independence of Public Prosecutor would NEVER try to interfere with any sitting Public Prosecutor, by recommending him/her to be appointed Judges – thus reasonably the JAC would not have likely recommended Terrirudin to be Federal Court Judge when he was still the Public Prosecutor. It would not have been an issue if Terrirudin, after he had already retired or ended his term, was considered and recommended by the JAC to be appointed Judge.

Vacancies For 24 High Court Judges, 3 Court Of Appeal Judges And 2(Now 4) Federal Court Judges

The 3^rd issue is the fact that there are at present vacancies for 24 High Court Judges, 3 Court of Appeal Judges and 2 Federal Court Judges, as at 1/7/2025, and it has been the case since before the Malaysian Bar press statement dated 5/6/2025.

The JAC reasonably will speedily make a recommendation to the Prime Minister for appointment whenever there is a vacancy, to ensure such judicial vacancies are speedily filled. The delay in filling the vacancies must be explained. Was the Prime Minister unhappy with the JAC’s recommendations? The delay in making judicial appointments will seriously impact the courts, and cause delays in trials.

Wrong For Cabinet To Discuss Or Exert Influence Of Who Be The Next Chief Justice

A recent 4^th issue of concern is the fact that the Malaysian Cabinet has been discussing about the Chief Justice. ‘The appointment of a new Chief Justice was raised during the Cabinet meeting but it was not discussed in detail, says Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil’(Star, 3/7/2025). Cabinet should not be even discussing about this, or even suggesting who should be appointed the next Chief Justice, the head of the Malaysian Judiciary.

CJM Highlights Concerns of Prime Minister’s Interference

It must be noted that Chief Justice Tengku Maimun did highlight concerns about interference in the independence of the Judiciary, reminding Anwar Ibrahim of  his position before he became Prime Minister. ‘Tengku Maimun expressed hope that Anwar as prime minister "will remain true to those comments by continuing to unreservedly remain committed to upholding the cause of judicial independence". She said while Malaysia has made great strides in restoring the reputation of its judiciary since 2016, which has resulted in the country being ranked highly in global adherence to rule of law, there are still concerns that the prime minister "still has too much power in the appointment of judges"(Malaysia Now, 9/1/2025). Her comments came five months after concerns were raised over the appointment of former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh as a senior judge.  Anwar failed to confirm that Terrirudin’s name was recommended by the JAC.

The Chief Justice did later again also suggest the removal of the Prime Minister’s role in appointment of judges. ‘The proposed changes to remove the prime minister in the appointment of judges will reinforce the impartiality of the selection process, says Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. She said the amendments, which would fall under the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009 and the Federal Constitution, would ensure judicial appointments remain free from any perception of political influence. "Of late, there have been proposals to amend the JAC Act 2009 and the Federal Constitution to remove the role of the Prime Minister in the appointment of judges. "Such changes, in my view, would reinforce the impartiality of the selection process, ensuring that judicial appointments remain firmly grounded on merit and free from any perception of political influence," she said in her speech at the 24th Commonwealth Law Conference in St Julian's Bay, Malta, today. NST, 8/4/2025

We are in support of the proposal to remove the role of the Prime Minister in the appointment and elevation of judges.

The Need to Remove the Prime Minister’s Role in The Judicial Appointments Commission

‘Just a week after Anwar in 2022 came to power, the Conference of Rulers raised concerns about the prime minister's powers to appoint senior judges, where it said JAC in its present composition had weaknesses, and called for a more balanced composition so that appointments were not biased towards any parties. "To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister," Negeri Sembilan ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir had then said. "Instead, it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee." "(Malaysia Now, 9/1/2025). To date, Prime Minister had failed to act on the Conference of Rulers’ recommendation.

The JAC is now made up of 9 members, where 5 are chosen by the Prime Minister, and the other 4 being the Chief Justice, Court of Appeal president, Chief Judge of High Court of Malaya and the Chief Judge of High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.

Prime Minister Can Be A Party in Cases Before Court, And Also Can Commit Crimes

After the conviction of former Prime Minister Najib Razak, and the fact that other past Prime Ministers have been charged, and, if not been investigated for criminal offences, it no longer is wise or safe to allow Prime Ministers to decide on who should be appointed Judges at any level.

There are also cases in court, where the Prime Minister or the person who is (or was) Prime Minister are parties in court cases.

In the case of current Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, he has a case where a former political aide, Yusoff Rawther, is suing him for sexual harassment/assault. Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad defamation lawsuit against Anwar Ibrahim is also now scheduled for hearing between Aug 13 to 21. Anwar Ibrahim also did file a lawsuit against Terengganu MP Ahmad Amzad on 22/12/2022, after he became PM, which was settled in March. Anwar also sued Perak PAS Commissioner Razman Zakaria on 5/12/2022 for defamation, though now settled.

In such legal suits where Anwar Ibrahim or any sitting Prime Minister is before the courts as a party, it is crucial to ensure a Fair Trial where judges must be independent and seen to be independent. Would  judges appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister be seen as independent, more so when the Prime Minister also has the power and role in elevating the said judge in the future?

Likewise, the decisions of the Prime Minister, or his Ministers can be subject to Judicial Review, and again can we say that a judge appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, or a judge in the future could or could not be elevated to higher judicial office on the advice of the Prime Minister be said or be seen as an independent Judge?

To preserve the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, we call for the removal of the Prime Minister from deciding on the appointment and elevation of judges. This is to preserve the independence of the judiciary.  

This will also to preserve the role of the Judiciary in a democracy to be an effective check on the other branches, being the Executive and the Legislature. Courts do examine laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive to determine if they comply with the constitution and law.

We also call for the Malaysian Federal Constitution be amended, and the Prime Minister should be replaced by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), who shall advice the King on the appointment, elevation, post-retirement 6-month extension and/or the removal of judges. The Prime Minister shall have no role with regards these aspects for the Malaysian judiciary.

We also call for the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 be amended, amongst others, to abide with the recommendation of the Conference of Rulers whereby there will no longer be any Prime Minister’s appointees in the JAC.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf the 10 Groups listed below

 

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC), Malaysia

Hayat, Malaysia

North South Initiative (NSI), Malaysia

Persatuan Amal Progresif, Malaysia

Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India

Haiti Action Committee

Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India

WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

 

 

 

World Drug Day(26th June) - Abolish Life Imprisonment and Death Penalty for DRUG offences

 

Media Statement (World Drug Day) – 26/6/2025

Abolish Life Imprisonment and Death Penalty for DRUG offences

On the occasion of the World Drug Day (26^th June), MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) applauds Malaysia for the elimination of the mandatory death penalty for the offence of drug trafficking, which now finally allows judges, after convicting a person of the offence of drug trafficking, do have the option to sentence persons convicted of drug trafficking offence to life imprisonment and whipping, other than death. This was made possible after the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.

An Oversight Which Still Provides for Life Imprisonment for Drug Trafficking Should Be Speedily Dealt With

However, there was an oversight, when the alternative imprisonment sentence for drug trafficking remains the life imprisonment, when MADPET believed that ‘life imprisonment’ should have been amended to 30 to 40 years imprisonment, which MADPET hope Malaysia should speedily do the needed amendment. This is inconsistent, as all other previously mandatory capital offence, now carry an alternative sentence of imprisonment – not the life imprisonment, which was also abolished with the mandatory death penalty.

Section 39B(2) still today reads ‘(2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, be punished with whipping of not less than twelve strokes.’

Until that ‘imprisonment for life’ for drug trafficking is speedily amended to a range like 30 to 40 years imprisonment, Courts will have a problem when they chose the alternative to death sentence, they still have to sentence convicted drug traffickers to ‘imprisonment for life’.

Now, some courts have been since sentencing drug traffickers to 30 to 40 years imprisonment, and not imprisonment for life, which is JUST but still could be seen as illegal when this Drug law specifically provides the alternative punishment of ‘imprisonment for life’ for the crime of drug trafficking.

MADPET believes that the offence of drug trafficking ought to broken up to provide for different types of drug trafficking offences with different sentences. ‘Mules’ arrested with drugs in their possession should be subjected to much lesser sentences, compared to kingpins or bosses, that manufacture, sell, or arrange distribution networks. Rather that fixing the minimum imprisonment term at 30 years, it may be just to set it at no more than 5 years, or simply not fixing any minimum term of imprisonment, and leaving it to judges to determine the appropriate just sentence for each particular case.

DRUG OFFENCES and Death Row

In November 2023 in Malaysia, on death row, there were 840 for drug offences, and 435 for other offences – about 65% because of drug offence – drug trafficking.  Now, in January 2025, only 40 are on death row for drug offences, and another 100 for other offences – about 28% on death row for drug offences (Malay Mail, 5/4/2025)

This happened not only because of the Abolition Of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, but more importantly the Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction Of The Federal Court) Act 2023 that allowed the Federal Court temporary special jurisdiction to consider the application of death row inmates, who had already exhausted all appeals, to review their death sentence.

“… 814 individuals were granted a reduction of their death sentences to imprisonment through hearings under the Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Review (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 [Act 847], which came into effect on September 12, 2023,” she[Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said] said in a parliamentary written reply to Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh Deo.[Malay Mail, 6/11/2024]

After the Abolition Of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, courts hearing appeals could also change death sentences in appropriate cases to the imprisonment sentence. The Minister also said “Of that number, 52 were prisoners at the appeal stage who were granted a reduction of their death sentences to imprisonment….’ .[Malay Mail, 6/11/2024]

Likewise, now courts hearing drug trafficking case could now avail themselves to the alternative to death sentences if the accused had been found guilty.

Despite The Abolition Of Mandatory Death Penalty, Persons Still Being Sentenced To Death..

Although Malaysia abolished the MANDATORY death penalty, the death penalty still exists in all these offences. The only difference, is that now, upon conviction, judges have the option of sentencing to death, OR imposing the alternative imprisonment plus whipping sentence.

The problem is that some Judges/Courts, despite the abolition of mandatory death penalty, still continues to impose the death penalty, both after trial at the court of first instance, or the appeals following.

In November 2024, the Minister acknowledged this. ‘Azalina noted that 18 individuals received new death sentences — 12 from the High Court and six from the Court of Appeal.’ [Malay Mail, 6/11/2024]

This means that there will still be death row prisoners, and the numbers will rise in time – and there is NO possible way on how to deal with this existing and new death row prisoners.

Revision of Sentence of Death and Imprisonment for Natural Life (Temporary Jurisdiction Of The Federal Court) Act 2023 only gave TEMPORARY powers to the Federal Court, and effectively now is a ‘DEAD Act’ – as persons in death row cannot anymore apply for a revision of their death penalty.

In Indonesia, at the end of 2022, their revised Criminal Code introduced an automatic 10-year probation for convicts on death row to demonstrate good behavior for the possibility of having their sentences commuted. This law will take effect on January 2, 2026.

MADPET urges Malaysia to revive the Federal Court’s jurisdiction to be able to revise death penalty of those on death row, who have already exhausted their appeals. Those on death row ought to be allowed to make applications, maybe once every 2 years or when circumstances warrant such an application.

MADPET also reiterates for the abolition of the death penalty, noting Malaysia’s commitment to the world at large to have a moratorium on execution pending abolition of the death penalty. Malaysia voted in favor of the UN General Assembly Resolution in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024 which is also Malaysia’s commitment to abolish the death penalty.

No Public Outcry Indicates Malaysia’s Readiness For Total Abolition Of Death Penalty

There was no public outcry when the mandatory death penalty was abolished. Likewise, there was no outcry when dead sentence was commuted to imprisonment plus whipping, and as such it is a positive indicator that Malaysia and Malaysians are ready for the abolition of the death penalty.

A possible next step is the abolition of death penalty for offences that does not directly result in death or grievous bodily harm to any victim/s.

Drug offences are one such category of offences, where death penalty ought to be abolished.

Statutory Denial of Bail Must be Abolished – Let Courts decide on Bail

Section 41B(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952[DDA] now states that ‘Bail shall not be granted to an accused person charged with an offence under this Act – (a) where the offence is punishable with death; or….’. The 39B Drug Trafficking offence carries the sentence of death OR life imprisonment, and as such BAIL, by law, cannot be granted.

Yusoff Rawther, and 7 others in 3 different cases, from February this year, who had languish in detention for months, and the worst for more than 5 years because of this denial of bail, ended up being found not guilty and acquitted (NST, 6/3/2025) (The Star, 14/3/2025) (NST, 12/2/2025). This were only the media reported cases, and so there can be more.

It is a gross miscarriage of justice for these innocent persons to have suffered prolonged pre-conviction detention because the Statute, not judges, denied them bail. MADPET reiterates the call for the repeal of statutory provisions that deny bail, and ask that judges be restored that Judges be restored the jurisdiction to hear and decide on all bail applications.

DNAA If Trial Cannot Speedily Begin and End

What is of great concern is the delay of commencement and ending of criminal trials, more so for those who have to suffer pre-conviction detention in Malaysia’s already overcrowded prisons. Recently, in former Prime Minister Najib’s trial, where there was delay in starting and ending trial, the courts DISCHARGED Najib – a Discharge Not Amounting To Acquittal (DNAA).

MADPET asks for similar DNAA for all pre-conviction or remand prisoners, be it for drug offences of other offences, to ensure Malaysia’s Constitutional guarantee under Article 8(1) ‘All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’

If trial cannot start within 3 months, they should all be DISCHARGED, and this will not be prejudicial to State who can at anytime re-charge them when prosecution is ready to start and end trial speedily. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied also applies to the presumed innocent accused persons, especially those subjected to pre-conviction or remand detention.

MADPET also reiterates for the abolition of whipping, more so since the recent case where a person died after being whipped.

In dealing with the DRUG problem, it seems obvious that death penalty or heavy penalties have not solved the problem of drug use and abuse. Thus, States should look at real causes of addiction, mostly done voluntarily, and deal with it in more effective ways like education.

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two years after abolishing the mandatory death penalty, data shows Malaysia may be moving on for good

Data presented in Parliament during the February-March sitting showed a sharp increase in commutations of existing death sentences in the six months after Putrajaya repealed the mandatory death penalty, as death row inmates filed appeals for resentencing and judges granted them. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

Saturday, 05 Apr 2025 7:00 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, April 5 — Within two years year of the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim administration abolishing the mandatory death penalty, the number of death row inmates has plunged by nearly 90 per cent, the clearest sign yet that Malaysia is moving away from capital punishment — even as it remains legal.

Data presented in Parliament during the February-March sitting this year showed a sharp increase in commutations of existing death sentences in the six months after Putrajaya repealed the mandatory death penalty.

This comes as death row inmates filed appeals for resentencing and judges granted them.

Most sentences were commuted to prison terms of between 20 and 40 years, with the latter often reserved for serious crimes such as murder.
A Flourish chart

Rapid speed in resentencing

In January 2024, there were 1,275 death row inmates, with 936 awaiting their resentencing applications. By January 1 this year, the total number of death row inmates had dropped to just 140 — a staggering 87 per cent decline.

The data reflects the speed at which judges commuted these sentences, slashing resentencing cases by over half by July 2024 before clearing most of them as the year progressed.

Just 50 death sentences were retained

A total of 860 death sentences were commuted within 12 months, with just 50 retained. Meanwhile, courts struck out 22 applications on administrative grounds, barring them from reapplying.

Four inmates, however, died in prison before their resentencing applications could be approved.

A Flourish chart

Some drug offenders remained on death row

While the data shows judges largely retained death sentences for murder cases, dozens of drug offenders were not spared.

Still, the number of death row inmates convicted for drug trafficking dropped significantly by January 1 this year, from 840 a year earlier to just 40 — the highest rate of commutations among all offences.

In contrast, death sentences for homicide had the highest rate of retention. On January 1, 2024, there were 435 death row inmates convicted of murder, with 335 of them having their sentences commuted 12 months later.

A total of 100 death sentences were retained.

By gender, male death row inmates had the highest rate of sentence retention, at 137. Only three of the remaining death row inmates are women.

A Flourish chart

Progress made, but gaps remain

Anti-capital punishment groups such as Hayat, which works with families of death row inmates, said the data signals progress but also highlights gaps.

For instance, the absence of written judgments for resentencing cases was a missed opportunity to provide guidance for fair and just sentencing discretion, the group said.

There is also ambiguity around resentencing for juvenile offenders and those with mental health conditions. Laws governing sentencing for these groups still allow for indefinite imprisonment and the death penalty.

Another issue is whipping, which was not repealed despite the move to abolish the mandatory death penalty. Human rights groups have described whipping as inhumane. - Malay Mail, 5/4/2025

Over 800 death row sentences commuted to imprisonment under new Act, says Azalina

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said 866 individuals received reduced sentences from the Federal Court between Jan 1 and Oct 14, 2024. — Bernama pic

By Muhammad Yusry

Wednesday, 06 Nov 2024 8:39 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 — More than 800 death row inmates in Malaysia have had their sentences commuted to imprisonment under the new Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Review Act 2023.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said 866 individuals received reduced sentences from the Federal Court between Jan 1 and Oct 14, 2024.

“Of that number, 52 were prisoners at the appeal stage who were granted a reduction of their death sentences to imprisonment.

“Additionally, another 814 individuals were granted a reduction of their death sentences to imprisonment through hearings under the Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Review (Temporary Jurisdiction of the Federal Court) Act 2023 [Act 847], which came into effect on September 12, 2023,” she said in a parliamentary written reply to Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh Deo.

Ramkarpal had asked the Prime Minister’s Department for the number of individuals newly sentenced to death from January 1 to October 14 this year, and the number of death penalty commutations during the same period.

Azalina noted that 18 individuals received new death sentences — 12 from the High Court and six from the Court of Appeal. - Malay Mail, 6/11/2024