Najib has no money to pay RM50 mil fine, says lawyer

KUALA LUMPUR, 25 SEPTEMBER 2026 —

KUALA LUMPUR — Imprisoned former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak lacks the financial resources to pay the RM50 million fine required to secure his release under house arrest, his long-time legal counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah stated on Friday.

The statement shows a significant legal and financial impasse in one of Malaysia’s most high-profile corruption cases. While the royal pardon board has granted Najib the opportunity to serve his sentence under house arrest, this privilege is strictly contingent upon the immediate payment of a substantial sum.

By asserting that Najib “simply cannot afford it,” Shafee highlighted the disconnect between the legal requirements for clemency and the reality of the former leader’s frozen assets, a situation that has drawn intense scrutiny from the public and political observers alike.

The Federal Territories Pardons Board, operating under the authority of the King, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, announced on September 18 that Najib is permitted to serve the remainder of his reduced jail term under house arrest. However, this permission is not unconditional. The board specified that Najib must first pay a RM50 million fine to activate the house arrest arrangement.

This condition places a heavy financial burden on the former prime minister, who is currently incarcerated and whose financial avenues are severely restricted by ongoing court orders.

Najib is currently serving a sentence in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case, a matter in which the Federal Court upheld his conviction for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering. The original sentence imposed by the court included 12 years of imprisonment and a RM210 million fine.

In 2024, the Pardons Board, then under the leadership of Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, exercised its clemency powers to reduce this sentence to six years of imprisonment and a RM50 million fine. The current dispute centers on the ability to pay this reduced fine, which serves as the gateway to the house arrest arrangement.

Shafee provided a detailed explanation for Najib’s inability to pay, pointing to the comprehensive freezing of the former prime minister’s financial accounts. According to the lawyer, all of Najib’s accounts, including his Affin Bank account through which he received his salary while in government, are frozen. This legal restriction prevents Najib from accessing any liquid funds that might otherwise be used to settle the fine.

The freezing of these accounts is part of broader enforcement proceedings that have immobilized most of his assets, leaving him with no direct means to generate the cash flow necessary for the payment.

In a statement released last week, Najib’s legal team further clarified that the payment of the fine is entirely out of their client’s control. The lawyers emphasized that the majority of Najib’s assets remain subject to freezing orders and active enforcement proceedings, making it legally and practically impossible for him to liquidate assets or transfer funds to meet the board’s condition.

This legal limbo has created a scenario where the pardon, while granted in principle, is effectively suspended due to the financial barriers imposed by the court orders.

The issue has also sparked debate regarding the role of political support in such cases. Shafee noted that he had “no idea” about the latest amount collected by the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) to aid its ex-president. The party had organized the “Najib Razak Solidarity Fund,” which had raised more than RM1 million as of September 19.

While this sum is significant, it falls far short of the RM50 million required, and Shafee’s comment suggests a lack of coordination or transparency between the legal team and the political fundraising efforts.

Shafee also addressed the public sentiment surrounding the case, acknowledging that many may mock the statement that Najib cannot afford the fine. He noted that critics often ask where the millions allegedly stolen from 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) had gone. In response, Shafee defended his client by repeating arguments previously made in the 1MDB case.

He stated that Najib had received US$681 million and returned US$620 million, with the monies utilized for corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes. Shafee stressed that Najib did not keep a single cent of the funds, a narrative that directly contradicts the findings of the lower courts.

However, this defense has already been dismissed by the High Court in its decision on the 1MDB-Tanore case. The court found Najib guilty of four abuse of power charges and 21 money laundering charges, rejecting the argument that the funds were merely passed through for CSR purposes. Najib is currently appealing that decision, but until the appeal is resolved, the lower court’s findings stand.

The persistence of this argument by Shafee highlights the ongoing legal battle over the characterization of the funds, even as the immediate issue of the RM50 million fine remains unresolved.

It is to note that the pardon decision is limited strictly to the SRC International Sdn Bhd case. In this specific case, Najib is accused of making decisions that led to the squandering of RM4 billion from the public servants’ retirement fund, known as the Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP). Of that sum, RM42 million was found to have gone into Najib’s personal bank account.

The distinction between the SRC case and the 1MDB case is legally significant, as the pardon does not extend to the latter, where the convictions remain under appeal.

The inability to pay the fine has placed Najib in a precarious position, where the promise of house arrest remains unfulfilled due to financial constraints imposed by the very legal system that convicted him. The situation has drawn attention to the complexities of enforcing financial penalties in high-profile corruption cases, particularly when assets are frozen.

As the legal team continues to navigate these challenges, the focus remains on whether any legal or financial mechanism can be found to satisfy the RM50 million condition, or if Najib will continue to serve his sentence in prison.

The case also reflects broader questions about the intersection of royal clemency, judicial enforcement, and political influence in Malaysia. The involvement of Umno in fundraising for the fine, despite Shafee’s disavowal of knowledge regarding the specific amounts collected, adds a layer of political complexity to what is primarily a legal and financial issue.

The public’s interest in the case remains high, with many watching closely to see how the legal system will handle the discrepancy between the pardon’s conditions and the defendant’s financial reality.

Shafee’s comments on Friday serve as a clear signal that the legal team is not in a position to meet the board’s deadline or condition without further legal intervention or a change in the status of the frozen assets. The statement was made in response to ongoing media inquiries about the payment, indicating that the issue is a top priority for the defense.

The lawyer’s directness in stating that Najib “cannot afford it” removes any ambiguity about the current financial status of the former prime minister.

The situation also highlights the rigorous enforcement of asset freezing orders in Malaysia’s anti-corruption efforts. The fact that even salary accounts are frozen demonstrates the thoroughness of the enforcement proceedings. This level of restriction ensures that no funds can be diverted to pay fines or legal costs without court approval, a measure designed to prevent the dissipation of assets that may be needed for restitution or penalties.

As the case progresses, the focus will likely shift to the appeal process in the 1MDB-Tanore case, which could have implications for the overall narrative of Najib’s financial dealings. However, for the immediate future, the RM50 million fine remains the critical hurdle.

The legal team’s strategy will be closely watched by both supporters and critics, as any move to challenge the freezing orders or seek alternative payment methods could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

The statement from Shafee also serves as a reminder of the personal toll of prolonged legal battles on high-profile figures. The inability to access one’s own funds, even for the purpose of securing a pardon, underscores the severity of the legal consequences faced by those convicted of corruption. The case continues to be a focal point for discussions on justice, accountability, and the rule of law in Malaysia.

In the absence of a clear path to payment, the status quo is likely to persist, with Najib remaining in prison until further legal developments occur. The legal team’s position is clear: the fine is unpayable under current circumstances. This stance may prompt further legal challenges or negotiations with the authorities, but as of Friday, the RM50 million remains an unmet condition that keeps the house arrest arrangement on hold.

The case also draws attention to the role of the Pardons Board in balancing mercy with the rule of law. By setting a financial condition, the board has introduced a variable that depends on the defendant’s ability to pay, which is itself subject to court orders. This interplay between executive clemency and judicial enforcement creates a complex legal landscape that requires careful navigation by all parties involved.

Shafee’s comments have also sparked debate about the transparency of the fundraising efforts by Umno. While the party has raised over RM1 million, the gap to the RM50 million target is substantial. The lack of clarity on how these funds are being managed or whether they can be applied to the fine adds to the confusion surrounding the case.

The legal team’s distance from the fundraising efforts suggests a strategic decision to keep the legal and political aspects of the case separate.

The ongoing legal battles surrounding Najib continue to dominate the news cycle, with each development offering new insights into the complexities of Malaysia’s legal system. The case of the RM50 million fine is just one aspect of a larger story that involves multiple court cases, royal clemency, and political maneuvering.

As the legal team works to find a solution, the public remains engaged, waiting to see how the courts and the pardon board will resolve this impasse.

The statement from Shafee is a significant development in the case, as it explicitly acknowledges the financial barrier to the house arrest arrangement. This acknowledgment may influence future legal strategies, potentially leading to motions to unfreeze specific assets or to seek a reduction in the fine. However, without such actions, the status quo is likely to remain, with Najib continuing to serve his sentence in prison.

The case also highlights the importance of clear communication between the legal team, the authorities, and the public. The ambiguity surrounding the payment of the fine has led to speculation and misinformation, which Shafee’s statement aims to clarify. By stating the facts directly, the lawyer has provided a clear picture of the current situation, allowing for a more informed public discourse.

As the case moves forward, the focus will remain on the legal and financial aspects of the pardon. The ability to pay the RM50 million fine is the key to unlocking the house arrest arrangement, and until this condition is met, the pardon remains conditional.

The legal team’s efforts to navigate this challenge will be closely watched, as they could have significant implications for the outcome of the case and for future similar cases in Malaysia.

The statement from Shafee also serves as a reminder of the personal and financial consequences of corruption convictions. The freezing of assets and the imposition of large fines are designed to deter such behavior and to ensure that those who abuse their power face significant penalties.