Critics of the Malaysian Bar's appeal against the Pardons Board's decision to reduce Najib Razak's prison sentence and fine argue that judicial intervention in matters of clemency could undermine the executive's constitutional prerogative. They contend that the power to grant pardons is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Pardons Board, and judicial review of such decisions may encroach upon executive authority.
Opponents of judicial oversight in pardons decisions emphasize the principle of separation of powers, suggesting that the judiciary should refrain from intervening in executive functions, especially those explicitly outlined in the Federal Constitution. They argue that such intervention could set a precedent for judicial overreach, potentially disrupting the balance of power among the branches of government.
This perspective underscores the importance of respecting constitutional boundaries and the autonomy of each branch of government in fulfilling its designated roles without undue interference from the others.
The outcome of this appeal could have broader implications for the scope of judicial review in executive decisions, particularly in areas traditionally considered within the executive's domain.