I read 40(3), 42(1) and 44(4) together. Thats why the Pardon Board exists.

But i miss the addendum cause i didnt follow the details of his case. so it is procedural issue.

ayam ask AI

In Malaysia, whether the King's (Yang di-Pertuan Agong) power to grant a pardon is discretionary is a subject of significant legal debate, with a notable conflict between constitutional text and judicial interpretation.
The Legal Context (Article 42 of the Federal Constitution)
The Power: Under Article 42(1), the King has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, and respites for offenses tried by court-martial and those committed in the Federal Territories.
The Pardons Board: The King presides over a Pardons Board, which includes the Attorney General and a Minister.
The Debate: Discretionary vs. Bound by Advice
Constitutional Argument (Non-Discretionary):
Article 40(1A): Introduced in 1994, this clause stipulates that in exercising his functions under the Constitution, the King "shall accept and act in accordance with" advice provided.
Legal experts and the Malaysian Bar argue that because Article 40(2) specifically lists only four discretionary powers (and pardons are not among them), the King must follow the Pardons Board’s advice.
Judicial and Governmental View (Discretionary/Absolute):
Non-Justiciability: Malaysian courts, including the Federal Court, have consistently ruled that the power of pardon is a "royal prerogative" and is non-justiciable, meaning it cannot be challenged or reviewed in court.
Judicial Precedent: In cases like Sim Kie Chon and more recently in 2023 (Anwar Ibrahim v Mohd Khairul Azam), the courts held that the power is personal to the King and is an "absolute" discretion.
Government Stance: In 2025, government representatives have reiterated that the King retains "absolute authority" to decide on pardons, even despite the recommendations of the board.
Summary of Current Status (2025)
While the written Constitution (Article 40(1A)) suggests the King is bound by advice, the courts' interpretation remains that the power is a personal, absolute, and non-justiciable prerogative. Consequently, in practice, the power is treated as discretionary and final