Court sets Oct 14 to hear Najib's bid to pause 15-year jail term, fine in 1MDB case pending appeal

KUALA LUMPUR, 25 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 25) — The High Court has scheduled October 14 to hear former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s application to stay the execution of his conviction and sentence in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) criminal case, a procedural move that seeks to pause the commencement of his 15-year imprisonment and RM11.38 billion fine until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.

This application is distinct from the appeal itself; rather, it is a request to suspend the practical consequences of the conviction while the legal merits are still being adjudicated by the appellate courts.

The sentence in question was meted out by trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah on December 26 last year. Sequerah, who has since been elevated to the Federal Court, presided over the trial that resulted in Najib being found guilty on all 25 charges. The court imposed a 15-year jail term and a fine of RM11.38 billion.

Sequerah ordered that if Najib fails to pay the fine, he would be subjected to an additional 10 years in prison. The former prime minister was also ordered to pay a recoverable sum of RM2.081 billion, a figure representing the illicit funds traced to his accounts.

The timing of the 1MDB sentence is intricately linked to Najib’s existing incarceration in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case. Under the current sentencing structure, the 1MDB term is set to begin in August 2028, following the completion of his reduced prison sentence for the SRC case.

This sequential sentencing means that Najib will not physically enter prison for the 1MDB conviction until his current term concludes, a timeline that the stay of execution application seeks to further complicate or delay.

The October 14 hearing date was set on Friday during a case management conference before High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin. Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for Najib, while deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Mustafa P Kunyalam represented the prosecution. The court’s decision to set a specific date for the stay application, rather than granting it immediately, reflects the gravity of the request.

Ordinarily, a stay of execution is applied immediately following a decision to pause a sentence, but in high-profile cases involving substantial fines and lengthy prison terms, courts often schedule a dedicated hearing to ensure all procedural and legal bases are thoroughly examined.

Najib’s application comes in the immediate aftermath of a significant development regarding his current incarceration. Last Friday, the Pardons Board, operating under the authority of the King, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, announced that the former prime minister is permitted to serve the remainder of his reduced jail term under house arrest. This conditional pardon includes a requirement that Najib pays a RM50 million fine.

The announcement shifted the focus of public attention from the 1MDB trial to the practicalities of his current confinement, raising questions about the intersection of his two major legal cases.

The background of Najib’s current sentence stems from the SRC International case, where the court upheld his guilty verdict for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering. The original sentence in that case was a 12-year jail term and a RM210 million fine.

However, in 2024, the Pardons Board, then under the reign of Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, reduced these penalties to six years in prison and a RM50 million fine. This reduction was a moment in the case, altering the trajectory of Najib’s legal status and public perception.

Despite the reduction, it is understood that Najib has yet to pay the RM50 million fine associated with the SRC case. The Attorney General has not yet announced specific guidelines for Najib’s house arrest. This regulatory gap has created uncertainty, as Malaysia currently does not have comprehensive laws that explicitly govern the conditions, monitoring, and legal implications of house arrest for high-profile prisoners.

The absence of clear legislative frameworks for such measures has led to speculation about how the conditions will be enforced and monitored.

The 1MDB case itself has been characterized by extensive judicial scrutiny, with the trial court ruling that the return of “unused donations” was a mechanism to hide the illicit origin of funds. The court also determined that Najib was the apex decision maker in the 1MDB structure, with Jho Low serving as his proxy.

These findings were central to the conviction, with the judge noting that Jho Low’s central role with Najib was “significant,” citing evidence of their joint vacations and other interactions. The court further ruled that the defense argument regarding Arab donations had no merit, stating that the donation letters were forged.

The legal proceedings in the 1MDB case have been marked by detailed examinations of financial flows and decision-making processes. The trial judge, Sequerah, emphasized that Najib was not a “country bumpkin to be misled” on the 1MDB matters, a statement that underscored the court’s view of his active involvement in the alleged misconduct.

The comprehensive nature of the trial, which included testimony from numerous witnesses and the analysis of vast amounts of financial documents, has set a precedent for the handling of large-scale financial crimes in Malaysia.

As the October 14 hearing approaches, the focus will be on whether the High Court grants the stay of execution. A grant of the stay would effectively pause the start of the 1MDB sentence, potentially altering the timeline of Najib’s incarceration and the enforcement of the substantial fine. The prosecution is expected to argue against the stay, citing the finality of the trial court’s decision and the need to uphold the rule of law.

The outcome of this hearing will have significant implications for the broader legal landscape in Malaysia, particularly regarding the enforcement of sentences in high-profile corruption cases.

The case also highlights the complex interplay between the judiciary, the executive, and the monarchy in Malaysia’s legal system. The involvement of the Pardons Board in reducing the SRC sentence and the subsequent house arrest decision demonstrate the role of royal prerogative in the administration of justice. Meanwhile, the ongoing 1MDB appeal process underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

The upcoming hearing will be closely watched by legal experts, media, and the public, as it represents a critical step in the resolution of one of the most significant legal cases in Malaysian history.

The financial implications of the 1MDB case are substantial, with the RM11.38 billion fine and the RM2.081 billion recoverable sum representing a significant portion of the alleged misappropriated funds. The enforcement of these penalties will be a key aspect of the case’s resolution, with the government seeking to recover as much of the illicit funds as possible.

The stay of execution application adds another layer of complexity to this process, as it could delay the enforcement of the fine and the recovery of funds.

In the broader context of Malaysia’s economic and political landscape, the 1MDB case has had far-reaching effects. The scandal has led to increased scrutiny of corporate governance, financial transparency, and the role of state-linked entities in the economy. The legal proceedings have also sparked debates about the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Malaysia.

As the case moves through the appellate process, it will continue to shape public discourse and policy discussions on these critical issues.

The upcoming hearing on October 14 will be a moment in the 1MDB case, with the potential to impact the timeline and outcome of the legal proceedings. The decision of the High Court will be closely analyzed by legal scholars and practitioners, as it may set a precedent for the handling of stay of execution applications in similar cases.

The case remains a focal point for those following the intersection of law, politics, and economics in Malaysia, with its resolution likely to have lasting implications for the country’s legal and institutional frameworks.