Malaysia Court Clears Najib Razak for House Arrest as Former Prime Minister Returns Home After Four Years in Prison

There are moments in a country’s public life when a single court order seems to close one chapter and open another at the same time, and Tuesday, November 10, 2026, was such a moment in Malaysia. On that day, the Kuala Lumpur High Court cleared the final legal obstacle to moving former prime minister Najib Razak from prison to his home in the capital, ruling that the remainder of his reduced six-year sentence should be served under house arrest, and by Tuesday night he had arrived at his residence at No. 11 Langgak Duta, ending a four-year stretch behind bars that began when he became the first former Malaysian leader ever imprisoned for a major corruption scandal. The decision ended four days of confusion that began the previous Friday, when Najib left prison after his party paid a fine of 50 million ringgit, only to be brought back hours later after the attorney general intervened, and it set the terms of a new phase of his punishment, one that will run until August 23, 2028, and that still leaves a separate fifteen-year sentence waiting for him when it ends. It was a ruling that satisfied his supporters, unsettled his critics, and raised, once again, the question that has followed the 1MDB scandal for a decade: whether Malaysia’s most famous corruption case has been settled by the law, or merely rearranged by it, and the focus of this report is the Najib Razak house arrest November 2026 story and what it means for Malaysia, for its courts and for the politics that still swirl around the man at its centre.

1. The Court Clears the Way

The ruling arrived on a Tuesday, and it arrived in the form of a clarification, which is a modest word for a decision that settled a dispute sharp enough to have sent a former prime minister back to prison within hours of his release. The Kuala Lumpur High Court, sitting in the same complex where Najib had been convicted four years earlier, ruled that an order issued the previous week should be set aside and replaced with a new order, one that allows his house arrest to start immediately, and the court made clear that the decision flowed from the conditional pardon granted by Malaysia’s king, Sultan Ibrahim. The ruling was reported first by the state news agency Bernama and then carried around the world by Reuters, and within hours it had been confirmed by the home minister, by Najib’s lawyer and by the sight of the man himself, arriving home in a police-escorted vehicle as journalists crowded the road outside his house. The speed of the sequence, from a morning court order to an evening arrival at home, suggested that the machinery of the transfer had been ready for days and had only been waiting for the legal fog to lift, and the fact that it lifted in a single hearing, after four days of argument about the meaning of a royal pardon, suggested that the court had decided the question was narrower than the argument around it had made it seem.

1.1 Judge Aslam Zainuddin’s Order

The judge at the centre of the ruling was Aslam Zainuddin, and his order was framed, in the words reported from the courtroom, as a straightforward application of the pardon the king had granted. He said that, in accordance with the order of conditional pardon issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, Najib would serve the remainder of the reduced sentence of six years’ imprisonment in the SRC International case under house arrest, and he directed that the earlier order, dated November 6, be cancelled and replaced with a new one carrying that effect. The distinction between the two orders mattered, because the November 6 order had been the document on which the attorney general’s intervention rested, and by cancelling it and issuing a fresh order in its place, the judge removed the ground on which the transfer had been halted. The ruling was, in that sense, both a legal decision and a piece of housekeeping, clearing away an order that had become the subject of competing interpretations and replacing it with one whose meaning the court considered clear. What the judge did not do, according to the reporting, was to decide the wider questions that the case raises, about the scope of royal pardons or about the politics of the 1MDB scandal, and the narrowness of the ruling is part of why it was possible for the court to deliver it so quickly, and part of why the argument about it is likely to continue long after Najib has settled into his house.

1.2 The Attorney General’s Last-Minute Halt

The dispute that the court resolved had begun four days earlier, on Friday, November 6, when the attorney general suspended the implementation of the house arrest, saying that questions had arisen over the legal interpretation of the king’s pardon and of the court order that allowed Najib to leave jail. The intervention came at the last possible moment, after Najib’s party, UMNO, had paid the 50 million ringgit fine that was a condition of the pardon, and after Najib had actually left prison, and it had the effect of sending him back behind bars within hours, a reversal that turned a day of celebration for his supporters into a day of confusion for everyone else. The attorney general’s office was reported to have sought a review of the house arrest order, and the questions it raised concerned whether the pardon, as granted, permitted the remainder of the sentence to be served at home, and whether the court order of November 6 had correctly given effect to it. The intervention was not, as far as the public reporting shows, a challenge to the pardon itself, which is a royal act, but a dispute about its meaning and its mechanics, and it was the kind of dispute that can only be settled by a court, which is what happened on Tuesday. The four-day pause also had a political cost, because it left the government appearing divided, with the home minister and the attorney general seemingly at odds over the fate of the country’s most famous prisoner, and it is that appearance of division, as much as the legal question, that the Tuesday ruling was expected to put behind the government.

2. The Journey Home

If the legal story of the week was told in court orders and pardons, the human story was told in vehicles and roads, in a prison gate on a Friday and a quiet residential street on a Tuesday night. Najib’s transfer was not a ceremonial occasion, and it was not treated as one, but it was watched, in both its attempts, by a crowd of journalists and supporters that turned the ordinary business of moving a prisoner into a public event. The first attempt ended in confusion, with a man who had walked out of prison being brought back within hours, and the second ended in a scene that was both orderly and chaotic, with a police escort, a sealed-off road and a scrum of cameras trying to catch a glimpse of a face through tinted glass. The contrast between the two days captures something about the whole case, which has always been both a legal matter and a spectacle, and which has always been followed, in Malaysia and beyond, with an intensity that few corruption cases ever attract.

2.1 Friday’s False Start

The Friday that began the week was supposed to be the day the story ended, and for a few hours it looked as though it had. Najib’s party had paid the 50 million ringgit fine, about 12.3 million dollars, that was a condition of the conditional pardon, and Najib left prison, as his lawyer later described it, in the expectation that he was going home. But the attorney general’s intervention stopped the transfer before it could be completed, and Najib was brought back to prison hours later, after the questions about the pardon and the court order had been raised. The reversal was, by the standards of Malaysian politics, extraordinary, because it involved a former prime minister being released and then re-imprisoned on the same day, and because it happened in public, with the fine paid, the expectations raised and the supporters gathered, only for the whole process to be put on hold. The reporting of the day does not make clear exactly where Najib was when the halt was ordered, or how far the transfer had progressed before it was stopped, and those details may never be fully established, but the effect was clear enough: the man who had expected to sleep at home on Friday night slept in prison instead, and the question of when, and whether, he would go home became the subject of four days of legal argument. For his supporters, the Friday reversal was an injustice, a last-minute manoeuvre that denied a man a pardon the king had granted, and for his critics it was a necessary pause, a chance to make sure that the law had been followed before a convicted former leader was allowed to serve his sentence at home.

2.2 Tuesday Night at Langgak Duta

The Tuesday that ended the week was quieter than the Friday that began it, but it was no less closely watched, and the scene outside Najib’s house told its own story about the attention the case still commands. A Reuters journalist reported that Najib arrived at his home to start his house arrest on Tuesday, ending a four-year stint in prison, and that he reached his Kuala Lumpur residence on Tuesday night in a vehicle escorted by police, with a heavy security presence and chaotic scenes as scores of journalists clambered to catch sight of him. The house, at No. 11 Langgak Duta in the Taman Duta neighbourhood, had been sealed off by police before his arrival, with the road leading to it closed, and the vehicle that carried him was seen entering the compound, although the man himself was not clearly visible to the cameras. His lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, told reporters after the court hearing that all was settled for the transfer, and that the move to the residence would happen later that day, and by the evening it had. The arrival was the first time Najib had been home, as a free man in the limited sense that house arrest allows, since August 2022, and the fact that it happened at night, under police escort and behind closed gates, was a reminder that house arrest is still a form of imprisonment, even when the prison is a family home. The journalists who crowded the road were there because the moment mattered, not only as news but as a symbol, of a case that has defined Malaysian politics for a decade reaching a new and uncertain stage.

3. The Pardon That Made It Possible

None of what happened on Tuesday would have been possible without a pardon, and the pardon itself has a history that stretches back almost three years, through two royal decisions and a series of legal arguments about what a pardon can and cannot do. The story of the pardon is, in its own way, as complicated as the story of the crime, because it involves a king, a pardons board, a fine, a set of conditions and a dispute about interpretation that took a court four days to resolve. To understand why Najib is at home tonight, it is necessary to understand how the pardon was granted, what it changed and what it left unchanged, and why a document that was meant to settle the matter became, for a few days, the subject of the very argument it was supposed to end.

3.1 The January 2024 Halving

The first step in the pardon story came in January 2024, when a royal pardon halved Najib’s prison term and reduced his fine in the SRC International case. The original sentence, handed down after his conviction, was twelve years in prison and a fine of 210 million ringgit, and the pardon cut the term to six years and the fine to 50 million ringgit, a reduction that was, by any measure, substantial, and that was understood at the time as a significant act of clemency towards a man who had been, until a few years earlier, the most powerful person in the country. The pardon was granted by the king of the time, and it was the product of a process that involves the pardons board, but the decision itself was a royal one, and it was not accompanied, in the public reporting, by a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind it. The halving of the sentence meant that Najib, who had been jailed in August 2022, would be due for release in August 2028 rather than in 2034, and it also meant that the fine he would have to pay to benefit from the pardon was reduced to a sum that his party could, and did, pay. The January 2024 pardon did not, however, say anything about house arrest, and it did not change the fact that the remainder of the sentence was to be served in prison, and it was only later, with a second pardon, that the question of where the sentence would be served came into play.

3.2 The September Conditional Pardon

The second step came in September 2026, when Najib was granted a further conditional pardon, this one by King Sultan Ibrahim, allowing him to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest until August 23, 2028, contingent upon payment of the 50 million ringgit fine and compliance with the conditions attached to the pardon. It was this pardon, and the question of how it should be interpreted, that lay behind the dispute of the past week, because the pardon was conditional, and the conditions, and the mechanism by which they were to be given effect, became the subject of argument between the attorney general and the court. The conditional pardon was, in the reporting, described as allowing Najib to finish his sentence at home once the fine had been paid, and the payment was made on Friday, November 6, by his party, which was why the transfer was attempted on that day. But the attorney general’s suspension of the implementation, on the ground that questions had arisen over the legal interpretation of the pardon and the court order, suggested that the conditions, or the order that was supposed to carry them out, were not as clear as the pardon itself had seemed, and it was left to Judge Aslam Zainuddin, on Tuesday, to issue the clarification that the reporting describes, cancelling the November 6 order and replacing it with a new one that gives effect to the pardon as the court understood it. The sequence, a pardon in September, a fine paid in November, a halt on the same day and a court clarification four days later, is a reminder that even a royal pardon, in a constitutional monarchy, has to be carried into effect through the courts, and that the carrying into effect can itself become a legal dispute.

4. The Crime That Put Him in Prison

To understand why Najib’s house arrest matters, it is necessary to remember what put him in prison in the first place, and why his case has been described, in Malaysia and around the world, as the most important corruption trial in the country’s history. The case was not a minor matter of accounting, and it was not a technical breach of a regulation, but a prosecution that alleged the theft of billions of dollars from a state investment fund, and that ended with the first former prime minister in Malaysia’s history being sent to prison. The facts of the conviction, and the scale of the scandal behind it, are the reason the pardon and the house arrest have been so fiercely debated, and they are the reason the case will continue to be argued long after Najib has finished serving his sentence at home.

4.1 SRC International and RM42 Million

The conviction that sent Najib to prison concerned SRC International, a former subsidiary of the state fund 1MDB, and a sum of 42 million ringgit that the courts found had been transferred into his personal bank accounts. He was jailed in August 2022 after the Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest court, upheld his convictions for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving that sum, and the sentence was twelve years in prison and a fine of 210 million ringgit. The SRC case was the first of the 1MDB-related trials to reach a conclusion, and it was chosen, by the prosecutors, as the case to bring first, because the paper trail was, in their view, the clearest, and because the sum involved, while small by the standards of the wider scandal, was large enough to establish the pattern of the offending. Najib has consistently denied wrongdoing, and has maintained that he did not know the money in his accounts came from SRC, a defence that the courts rejected, and that he continues to raise in his appeals and in his public statements. The 42 million ringgit is, in the context of the billions said to have been taken from 1MDB, a modest sum, but it was the sum on which the first conviction rested, and it is the sum to which the pardon, the reduced sentence and now the house arrest all relate, which is why the SRC case, rather than the wider scandal, is the case that the court was dealing with on Tuesday.

4.2 The 1MDB Scandal Behind It

Behind the SRC case lies the scandal that gave it its significance, the looting of 1Malaysia Development Berhad, the state investment fund that Najib co-founded while he was prime minister, and from which, according to prosecutors and investigators in several countries, billions of dollars were embezzled. Najib was prime minister from 2009 to 2018, and during that time 1MDB, which was set up to drive economic development, became, in the words of the United States Department of Justice, a vehicle for fraud on a staggering scale, with money diverted to buy luxury property, art, a yacht and to finance a Hollywood film, among other things. The scandal was a central issue in the 2018 general election, in which Najib’s coalition lost power for the first time since independence, and it has been the subject of investigations, prosecutions and asset recoveries in Malaysia, the United States, Singapore and Switzerland, among others. The sums involved are disputed in their detail, but the scale is not, and the scandal has come to define Najib’s legacy, for his supporters as a conspiracy against him, and for his critics as proof of corruption at the highest level of government. The house arrest does not settle the argument about 1MDB, and it does not change the fact that other 1MDB cases against Najib are still pending, including the second trial that produced the fifteen-year sentence, and the scandal will continue to shape Malaysian politics for as long as its central figure remains a public presence, whether in prison or at home.

5. What House Arrest Means in Practice

House arrest is often described as though it were freedom, and it is often described as though it were prison, and it is neither, which is part of why it provokes such strong reactions in both directions. In Najib’s case, the practical meaning of the order is that he will serve the remainder of his six-year sentence at his home in Kuala Lumpur, under conditions set by the prison authorities, rather than in a cell in Kajang Prison, and that the home itself has been given a legal status that makes it, for the purposes of the sentence, a prison. The arrangement is not a release, and it is not a pardon of the conviction, and the sentence continues to run, day by day, until August 2028, but it is a very different kind of punishment from the one Najib has experienced for the past four years, and the difference is the reason the decision has been welcomed by his family and condemned by his critics in almost the same breath.

5.1 A Home Gazetted as a Prison

The mechanism by which the house arrest works is, in legal terms, straightforward, and it was described by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who said that Najib’s residence at Langgak Duta had been gazetted as a prison under the 1995 Prisons Act. Gazetting, in this context, means that the home has been formally designated, by a published order, as a place of detention, so that serving a sentence there has the same legal standing as serving it in a conventional prison, and so that the prison authorities retain responsibility for the prisoner while he is there. The designation is not a formality, because it carries with it the powers of the prison service, including the power to set conditions, to monitor compliance and to return the prisoner to a conventional prison if the conditions are breached, and it is the legal device that allows a sentence to be served outside a prison building without ceasing to be a sentence. The home, which is in the Taman Duta neighbourhood of Kuala Lumpur, was sealed off by police before Najib’s arrival, and the heavy security presence reported on Tuesday night suggests that the prison service and the police intend to treat the house as a place of detention in practice as well as in law. What is not yet clear, from the public reporting, is the full list of conditions attached to the house arrest, including who may visit, whether Najib may leave the house for medical treatment or other purposes, and how his movements will be monitored, and those details, which the prison authorities have not yet published in full, will determine how much of a change the move represents in practice.

5.2 The Conditions and the End Date

The one detail about the house arrest that is certain is its end date, because the conditional pardon, as reported, allows Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence at home until August 23, 2028, and the house arrest is tied to the six-year term that was fixed by the January 2024 pardon. That date, August 23, 2028, is now the horizon for this phase of his punishment, and it is the date by which the SRC sentence will have been fully served, whether in prison or at home, and it is also, as the reporting makes clear, the date on which a different and much longer sentence is due to begin. The conditions of the pardon, beyond the payment of the fine, have not been published in full in the reporting reviewed, and it is not clear what restrictions have been placed on Najib’s communications, his visitors or his public statements, or what would happen if he were found to have breached them, although the usual consequence of a breach of a conditional pardon is a return to prison. The fine itself, 50 million ringgit, was paid by his party, UMNO, on Friday, and it was the payment of that fine that triggered the attempt to transfer him, which suggests that the fine was the principal condition, and that the other conditions are matters of conduct rather than of money. The end date matters because it is not, as some of the early reporting might have suggested, the end of Najib’s punishment, but the end of one sentence and the beginning of another, and that distinction is the most important fact about the house arrest, and the one most likely to be lost in the celebration and the criticism that have followed it.

6. The Second Sentence Still Waiting

If the house arrest is the story of the week, the second sentence is the story of the next decade, and it is the fact that gives the Tuesday ruling its limits. Najib is not, as a result of the court’s decision, a free man, and he will not become one in August 2028, because a separate conviction, handed down in a second 1MDB trial, has already imposed a sentence of fifteen years, and that sentence is due to start only after the house arrest ends. The existence of the second sentence changes the meaning of everything that happened on Tuesday, because it means that the move to house arrest is a change in the place of punishment, not an end to it, and that the man who arrived home on Tuesday night is expected, on the current timetable, to return to prison in August 2028 to begin a sentence that would keep him there into the 2040s.

6.1 Fifteen Years from December 2025

The second sentence was imposed on December 26, 2025, when Najib was sentenced separately to fifteen years in prison and fined 11.387 billion ringgit, about 2.8 billion dollars, for corruption and money laundering in a second 1MDB trial, and it is, by any measure, a far more severe punishment than the six-year term in the SRC case. The fine alone, at more than eleven billion ringgit, is one of the largest ever imposed in Malaysia, and the sentence reflects the scale of the offending that the court found in that trial, which concerned the wider 1MDB scandal rather than the single SRC transaction. The fifteen-year sentence is due to start only after the house arrest ends, which means that it will not begin to run until August 24, 2028, when Najib is expected, on the current timetable, to return to Kajang Prison, and it will run, if it is served in full, until the early 2040s, when Najib, who is now 73, would be in his late eighties. The house arrest, as the reporting stresses, covers only the six-year term from the first trial, and not the fifteen-year sentence, and that distinction has been repeated in every account of the Tuesday ruling, because it is the distinction that prevents the house arrest from being mistaken for a release. The second sentence is also, it should be noted, a sentence that Najib is appealing, and the appeal, if it succeeds, could change the timetable entirely, but until it does, the fifteen years stand as the next chapter of the case.

6.2 The Appeal and the Return to Kajang

The appeal against the fifteen-year sentence is, in legal terms, the most important unfinished business in the case, because it is the proceeding that will decide whether Najib returns to prison in August 2028 or whether the second sentence is reduced, overturned or set aside. Najib is appealing the conviction and the sentence, and the appeal will be heard, in the ordinary course, by the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, by the Federal Court, in a process that could take months or years, and that could, depending on its outcome, change the date on which he returns to Kajang, or remove the need for a return altogether. The reporting does not give a date for the appeal, and it does not say whether a hearing has been fixed, and it is possible that the appeal will still be pending when the house arrest ends, in which case the question of whether Najib returns to prison in August 2028 will depend on whether the appeal has been decided and on what interim orders, if any, the court has made. The expectation reported in the coverage, that he will return to Kajang Prison on August 24, 2028, to begin serving the separate sentence if the appeal does not succeed, is therefore a conditional expectation, and the condition is the appeal, which is the one proceeding that could still change the course of the case. For now, the appeal is the reason the story is not over, and the reason the house arrest, however significant, is best understood as an interlude, rather than as a conclusion.

7. The Politics Around the Decision

A court order is a legal act, but in a case like this one it is never only a legal act, and the politics around the Tuesday ruling were visible before the ink on the order was dry. Najib remains, four years after he was jailed, a figure of enormous significance in Malaysian politics, as a former prime minister, as a senior figure in UMNO, the party that dominated Malaysian politics for six decades, and as a symbol, for different Malaysians, of either corruption or persecution. The decision to allow him to serve the rest of his sentence at home has been welcomed by those who see him as a victim of a political prosecution, and condemned by those who see him as a man who stole from the state and should serve his sentence in full, and the division is not a new one, but the house arrest has given it a new focus, and a new reason to be argued.

7.1 UMNO, the Government and the Public Mood

The party most closely associated with Najib is UMNO, and it was UMNO that paid the 50 million ringgit fine on Friday, a payment that was, in itself, a political statement, a demonstration that the party still stands behind its former leader and is willing to spend a substantial sum to secure his transfer home. The payment, and the party’s public support for the house arrest, reflect the fact that Najib retains a significant following within UMNO, and that his fate is still a live issue in the party’s internal politics, even after his conviction and imprisonment. The government, for its part, has been careful to present the decision as a matter for the courts and for the king, rather than as a political choice, and the home minister’s confirmation of the gazetting of the house, and the attorney general’s intervention on Friday, suggest a government that is itself divided, or at least uncertain, about how to handle a case that touches on the monarchy, the courts and the country’s most famous corruption scandal all at once. The public mood, as far as it can be judged from the reporting, is divided in the same way, with supporters gathering outside the court and the house, and critics arguing, in the press and on social media, that a man convicted of stealing from the state should not be allowed to serve his sentence in the comfort of his own home. The division is not going to be resolved by the house arrest, and it is likely to deepen as the appeal against the fifteen-year sentence proceeds, and as the 2028 date approaches.

7.2 A Minister Resigns on the Same Day

The politics of the day were given an extra twist by a development that was reported alongside the court ruling, and that may or may not be connected to it, which is the resignation of Transport Minister Anthony Loke, announced on the same day that the High Court cleared the way for Najib’s house arrest. The reporting that mentions the resignation does not, in the material reviewed, give a reason for it, and it does not say whether it was connected to the Najib decision, and it would be wrong to assume a connection without evidence, but the coincidence of the two events on the same day has been noted, and it has added to the sense that Tuesday was a day of political movement in Malaysia, and not only of legal decision. Loke is a senior figure in the government, and his resignation, whatever its cause, is a significant event in its own right, and the fact that it was announced on the day of the Najib ruling means that the two stories will be read together, at least for now, until the reason for the resignation is made clear. The resignation is a reminder that the Najib case does not exist in isolation, and that the politics around it are part of a wider politics, in which ministers resign, governments shift and the fate of a former prime minister is only one of the questions at stake, and it is a reminder, too, that the reporting of the day is incomplete, and that some of the most important facts, including the reason for a minister’s resignation, have yet to be established.

8. What to Watch Next

The house arrest is now a fact, and Najib is at home, but the story is not finished, and the questions that remain are the ones that will determine whether Tuesday’s ruling is remembered as a turning point or as a pause. The appeal against the fifteen-year sentence, the conditions of the house arrest, the public reaction and the political consequences are all still to be played out, and the next two years, until August 2028, will be a period in which the case continues to be argued, in the courts, in parliament and in public, even as the man at its centre serves his sentence at home. What follows are the tests that will show whether the house arrest is, as its supporters claim, a just and lawful exercise of the royal prerogative, and whether it is, as its critics claim, a privilege granted to a powerful man that would not have been granted to anyone else.

8.1 The Tests That Will Show Whether This Is Real

The first test will be the conditions of the house arrest themselves, and whether they are enforced, because a house arrest that is not monitored is not a punishment, and the prison authorities have not yet published, in the reporting reviewed, the full list of conditions or the arrangements for monitoring them. The second test will be the appeal against the fifteen-year sentence, and whether it is heard and decided before August 2028, because the appeal is the proceeding that will decide whether Najib returns to prison, and the timetable for it is not yet clear. The third test will be the public and political reaction, and whether the government is able to present the decision as a matter of law rather than of politics, because the perception that the law is applied differently to the powerful and to the ordinary is the perception that has done the most damage to public trust in Malaysia, and the house arrest will be judged, by many Malaysians, against that standard. The fourth test will be the fate of the other 1MDB cases, and whether they proceed, because the house arrest concerns only the SRC sentence, and the wider scandal is still the subject of proceedings that have not yet been concluded. And the fifth test will be the reason for the transport minister’s resignation, and whether it is connected to the Najib decision, because if it is, it will suggest that the politics around the case are more complicated than the court ruling alone would indicate, and if it is not, it will be a reminder that the two stories, however coincidentally timed, are separate.

8.2 The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that Malaysia’s former prime minister is home, after four years in prison, and that he will serve the rest of his six-year sentence under house arrest, until August 23, 2028, when a separate fifteen-year sentence is due to begin, if his appeal against it does not succeed. The court that cleared the way for the transfer did so by cancelling an earlier order and replacing it with a new one, giving effect to a conditional pardon granted by the king, and the home minister has gazetted the house as a prison, so that the sentence continues to run, in law, even as it is served at home. The decision ends four days of confusion that began with a Friday release and a same-day return to prison, and it settles, for now, the question of where Najib will serve the remainder of the SRC sentence, but it does not settle the question of whether he will return to prison in 2028, and it does not settle the argument about 1MDB, which will continue for as long as the appeal is pending and the other cases remain unresolved. The coming weeks will provide the answers.