My two 2-cents over Order of Discharge — Hafiz Hassan

NOVEMBER 9 — Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar has rightly pointed to “obvious” defects in the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s Order of Discharge relating to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s sentence in the SRC International corruption case.

According to Dusuki, such mistakes should not have arisen if those involved had carefully scrutinised every detail.

Dusuki wasn’t the only one to point out the obvious mistakes in the order.

Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar speaks to reporters after the Opening of the Legal Year 2026 at Malaysia International Trade and Exhibition Centre in Kuala Lumpur January 12, 2026. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Over the weekend, I have seen and read comments by lawyers pointing out the mistakes.

It has been truly a weekend of lights shining over the order.

My two cents is the Order of Discharge should have been a Warrant to Discharge.

In criminal practice and procedure, “Warrant” is the term used, as the case in Form 16, pursuant to Sections 79 and 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), and Form 40, pursuant to Section 391 CPC.

In Forms 16 and 40, the Warrant is addressed to the Officer in Charge of Prison in whose custody the person is imprisoned.

The Warrant authorizes and requires the prison officer to forthwith (Form 16) or immediately (Form 40) to discharge the said person from custody, unless he is liable to be detained for some other cause (Form 16) or some other matter (Form 40).

Now, Form 40 may use the word “discharge” but the word should mean “release” as Section 391 CPC  provides for the court to issue an order of release.

That is why Dusuki and lawyers alike have raised question over the use of the word “discharge” in the Order of Discharge.

My other two cents is that the Order of Discharge should stand to revision by a High Court Judge. 

Section 323(1) CPC allows for a High Court Judge to exercise revisionary jurisdiction over subordinate criminal courts, including, arguably, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.